So long Net Neutrality!

[Grover]

Federal court strikes down FCC net neutrality rules | The Verge (http://www.theverge.com/2014/1/14/5307650/federal-court-strikes-down-net-neutrality-rules)

This is bad for the consumer. Very bad.

[cartman]

After reading the judge's ruling, it appears that all the FCC has to do is reclassify broadband providers as "common carriers" to get around it.

[kcchief19]

The FCC can't just deem ISPs a common carrier; Congress would have to modify the Telecommunications Act. Under the current definition, I'm not sure ISPs can't be defined as common carriers, even though the FCC has treated them as such.

I've had a hard time getting my arms around net neutrality from the beginning. In most respects it seems like a noble goal. In other respects, it seems unrealistic and counterproductive.

[Blackadar]

I've had a hard time getting my arms around net neutrality from the beginning. In most respects it seems like a noble goal. In other respects, it seems unrealistic and counterproductive.

You're kidding, right? How is ensuring that you have access to content you want "unrealistic and counterproductive"?

[dubb93]

You're kidding, right? How is ensuring that you have access to content you want "unrealistic and counterproductive"?

Maybe he trusts his ISP to decide what content he can get and the speeds he can access that content?

[cartman]

Maybe he trusts his ISP to decide what content he can get and the speeds he can access that content?

And if the ISP breaks that trust, he can just select another broadband provider.

[dawgfan]

And if the ISP breaks that trust, he can just select another broadband provider.
Which is easier said than done in many cases (and locations).

[cartman]

Which is easier said than done in many cases (and locations).

Exactly

[ISiddiqui]

Seems to me that the issue is that the FCC did net neutrality under legally dubious means. We need to get Congress to actually vote on this.

[sterlingice]

Is there a realistic answer to the local cable/ISP monopolies in most areas where you have, at most, one cable company (Time Warner, Comcast, etc), one phone company (AT&T or Verizon), and satellite providers (basically tv only, tho)?

SI

[Blackadar]

Which is easier said than done in many cases (and locations).

Someone's sarcasm meter broke for a second. :D

[PilotMan]

Shitty news. The internet is so ingrained in the daily life of people worldwide, handing over control of it to your ISP would be akin to car dealerships selling cars with wooden wheels then marking up the costs of rubber tires to balance the P&L.

[cartman]

Is there a realistic answer to the local cable/ISP monopolies in most areas where you have, at most, one cable company (Time Warner, Comcast, etc), one phone company (AT&T or Verizon), and satellite providers (basically tv only, tho)?

SI

Which is exactly why broadband should be designated as a common carrier.

[chinaski]

uuuuuuugggggh.

[DaddyTorgo]

Just wait till politicians realize that killing net neutrality means their ISPs will be able to throttle/block off their porn - we'll see a net neutrality bill soon enough after that.

[mckerney]

Is there a realistic answer to the local cable/ISP monopolies in most areas where you have, at most, one cable company (Time Warner, Comcast, etc), one phone company (AT&T or Verizon), and satellite providers (basically tv only, tho)?

SI

I'd say municipal broadband, but it isn't realistic in a lot of places where telecom lobbyists have had it killed.

[Solecismic]

I'm wondering what happens when cable companies (many of which control our high-speed internet) start seeing greatly declining revenue from channel packages due to NetFlix/etc.

Unless there's a fix here, there's considerable potential for a war that can only be solved by the path of 1,000 lawsuits.

I think this will end up getting solved by higher prices for bandwidth usage. But without net neutrality, it will get ugly out there fast.

[sterlingice]

I'd say municipal broadband, but it isn't realistic in a lot of places where telecom lobbyists have had it killed.

I wish there was a public option. After all, business should be able to do it quicker and cheaper with their profit motive and all.

SI

[mckerney]

I'm wondering what happens when cable companies (many of which control our high-speed internet) start seeing greatly declining revenue from channel packages due to NetFlix/etc.

Unless there's a fix here, there's considerable potential for a war that can only be solved by the path of 1,000 lawsuits.

I think this will end up getting solved by higher prices for bandwidth usage. But without net neutrality, it will get ugly out there fast.

Probably bandwidth capping with on demand services from the cable providers that don't count towards the cap, along with throttling Netflix and Amazon with no merry neurality rules. And it wouldn't surprise me if in the case of throttling customer service reps would be telling people it is a problem with Netflix's end because they're just not at as fast as Comcast on demand.

[dawgfan]

Someone's sarcasm meter broke for a second. :D
Indeed, but in my defense there are multiple options where I live. Not many, but at least three (Comcast, CenturyLink, Dish).

[dubb93]

Indeed, but in my defense there are multiple options where I live. Not many, but at least three (Comcast, CenturyLink, Dish).

I have two options for "high speed" internet. Comcast, and a regional company who advertises blazing fast 250kbps download speeds. In-laws have the latter, it caused them to cancel Netflix. Can't wait for Comcast to start throttling video on demand services.

[mckerney]

Can't wait for Comcast to start throttling video on demand services.

Well Xfinity On-Demand will be there to save you from slow loading movies! And instead wasting your money by having to pay for everything in the Netflix library with Xfinity you're in control and can chose what you want to pay for! Movies start at just $4.99* ($5.99 for HD)!

*Requires subscription to Xfinity TV service, plans start at just $69.99

[RainMaker]

Bad news for consumers here. Just the country falling farther and farther back in this area. It's already embarrassing to not be able to compete with the rest of the first world.

ISPs wouldn't be fighting so hard for this if they didn't plan on throttling traffic or charging companies for preferred access. Will be a few years down the road but we can all expect services like Netflix to get much more expensive in the near future.

[DaddyTorgo]

Bad news for consumers here. Just the country falling farther and farther back in this area. It's already embarrassing to not be able to compete with the rest of the first world.

ISPs wouldn't be fighting so hard for this if they didn't plan on throttling traffic or charging companies for preferred access. Will be a few years down the road but we can all expect services like Netflix to get much more expensive in the near future.

Yup

[RainMaker]

It's also ironic that Verizon wants government to not intervene in their business. They have not paid taxes in over 5 years despite making billions in profits. This is due to the ridiculous amount of tax breaks ISPs receive. The taxes that consumers have to pay for services that are supposed to go into building infrastructure that is not.

So lets make a deal. Government gets out of their way and that includes all the special tax breaks.

[Buccaneer]

My home ISP is Comcast. I do not trust them.

[mckerney]

It's also ironic that Verizon wants government to not intervene in their business.

Verizon also has no problem with government intervention of ISPs when it comes to the government stopping municipalities from creating broadband networks, like the law they lobbied for and helped pass in Pennsylvania.

[cuervo72]

ISPs wouldn't be fighting so hard for this if they didn't plan on throttling traffic or charging companies for preferred access.

I can't wait until FOFC, OOTP, FOBL, Solecismic have to pay protection money to broadband providers just to keep sites accessible.

[mckerney]

I can't wait until FOFC, OOTP, FOBL, Solecismic have to pay protection money to broadband providers just to keep sites accessible.

Don't worry, if your favorite websites doesn't offer you premium service on Xfinity you can give it an Xfinity Powerboost by adding it on in a bonus tier subscription plan!

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2010-12-15-net_neutrality_loses_whatif.jpg

And just wait to download a game on your XBox when your ISP has already made an exclusive digital content deal with Sony.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

One more reason I'm glad I get to sign up for Google Fiber in March.

[cartman]

One more reason I'm glad I get to sign up for Google Fiber in March.

Won't help if a site you visit a lot throttles Google in favor of giving preferential traffic to another ISP.

[RainMaker]

One more reason I'm glad I get to sign up for Google Fiber in March.

Can't they just do the same thing? Just slow down the App store for Apple or something?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Won't help if a site you visit a lot throttles Google in favor of giving preferential traffic to another ISP.

It's a problem I'm willing to deal with compared with the other options out there. They can go ahead and throttle some sites back to 100MB from 1GB. Beats less than 5 MB I'm getting from most providers right now.

[cartman]

It's a problem I'm willing to deal with compared with the other options out there. They can go ahead and throttle some sites back to 100MB from 1GB. Beats less than 5 MB I'm getting from most providers right now.

That's one of the big misconceptions with having a big internet pipe. One of my customers has a 100MB fiber connection. That doesn't mean they can access sites at 100MB. Most of them top out at 10MB, because that is the speed of the site's colo cross-connect. Even DL'ing from Microsoft tops out around 45MB. That Google Fiber connection is just 1GB from you to the Google local site. After that it quickly gets bottlenecked by carrier connections and then bandwidth limitations of sites. It will just get even worse when side deals start to get worked out if Net Neutrality doesn't get approved.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

That's one of the big misconceptions with having a big internet pipe. One of my customers has a 100MB fiber connection. That doesn't mean they can access sites at 100MB. Most of them top out at 10MB, because that is the speed of the site's colo cross-connect. Even DL'ing from Microsoft tops out around 45MB. That Google Fiber connection is just 1GB from you to the Google local site. After that it quickly gets bottlenecked by carrier connections and then bandwidth limitations of sites. It will just get even worse when side deals start to get worked out if Net Neutrality doesn't get approved.

I have three friends with Google Fiber already. Worst speed I've seen at the three houses is around 300MB. It slows to that speed if you have TV on while perusing the internet. That's a problem I'm willing to have.

[DanGarion]

The FCC can't just deem ISPs a common carrier; Congress would have to modify the Telecommunications Act. Under the current definition, I'm not sure ISPs can't be defined as common carriers, even though the FCC has treated them as such.

I've had a hard time getting my arms around net neutrality from the beginning. In most respects it seems like a noble goal. In other respects, it seems unrealistic and counterproductive.

Of course you do... you are one of them... ;)

[mckerney]

I have three friends with Google Fiber already. Worst speed I've seen at the three houses is around 300MB. It slows to that speed if you have TV on while perusing the internet. That's a problem I'm willing to have.

That's pretty impressive that they're getting speeds nearly 2.5x faster than Google Fiber provides.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

That's pretty impressive that they're getting speeds nearly 2.5x faster than Google Fiber provides.

At up to 1,000 Mbps, Google Fiber is 100 times faster than today's basic broadband, allowing you to get what you want instantaneously.

They said 'up to' because obviously they provide more than one service. But if you want it and have the proper routers, high speeds are definitely available. One of my friends was frustrated initially because he couldn't get any more than 100MB/s. Figured out that his routing gear was causing a bottle neck. Once he resolved that, he was getting much higher speeds even with the TV on.

[mckerney]

They said 'up to' because obviously they provide more than one service. But if you want it and have the proper routers, high speeds are definitely available. One of my friends was frustrated initially because he couldn't get any more than 100MB/s. Figured out that his routing gear was causing a bottle neck. Once he resolved that, he was getting much higher speeds even with the TV on.

1000 Mbps is about 128 MBps, so 100MBps is already coming close to maxing that out.

[IlliniCub]

Is the issue dead? Is there an appeal process to the decision? Can it be taken to a higher court?

[RainMaker]

I can barely get to 10 even if I pay for 20.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

1000 Mbps is about 128 MBps, so 100MBps is already coming close to maxing that out.

You win the computer speed capitalization correction contest.

[mckerney]

You win the computer speed capitalization correction contest.

And you win for confusing people with inaccurate numbers.

[cartman]

Is the issue dead? Is there an appeal process to the decision? Can it be taken to a higher court?

It could still be appealed to the Supreme Court, but based on the written decision, I don't think they would take the case and if they did, overturn it. It is probably going to fall back on Congress to handle it legislatively.

[ISiddiqui]

I have been thinking about this and I am on the fence about net neutrality. On first brush, it seems like a really great idea - why should those ISPs be allowed to discriminate and destroy companies that they are competing with? On the other hand, streaming services like Netflix, Hulu, etc, don't really have to pay the true cost of the bandwidth they use. They get to pay equal amounts as what a website with all text on it pays and the ISP is left footing the bill.

It tends to make the ISPs into de facto utilities and perhaps that's the goal, but that doesn't mean the price is going to go down anytime soon (or service go up) if that's the direction we want to go. In the end, we have to make a decision what we'd rather want.

And of course, if net neutrality is upheld, I have a feeling data caps will finally come to ISPs.

[JonInMiddleGA]

And of course, if net neutrality is upheld, I have a feeling data caps will finally come to ISPs.

And once that happens you can pretty much stick a fork in the internet as we know it. As a pervasive influence it'll be a dead duck, as will any sort of creative programming that requires heavy loads.

[ISiddiqui]

Indeed. So the issue may not be as cut and dried as some would like.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Indeed. So the issue may not be as cut and dried as some would like.

Among the things that seem likely to die an unintended death from this would be the trend toward government operations (like filings, registrations, renewals, etc) online.

[RainMaker]

Among the things that seem likely to die an unintended death from this would be the trend toward government operations (like filings, registrations, renewals, etc) online.

ISPs will offer it up for free just like payphones and stuff let you call 9-1-1. Pretty easy to just whitelist all .gov sites.

[JonInMiddleGA]

ISPs will offer it up for free just like payphones and stuff let you call 9-1-1. Pretty easy to just whitelist all .gov sites.

Except where is their motivation (currently) to do so?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Obama pushing to reclassify internet/mobile broadband as a public utility.

The White House Is Backing Strong Open Internet Rules : All Tech Considered : NPR (http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/11/10/363013806/the-white-house-is-backing-the-internet-in-a-major-way)

[kcchief19]

If I could cross-post this to political threads I would in. In other news, Ted Cruz denounces Net Neutrality as "Obamacare for the Internet," torpedoes 2016 presidential bid before it ever starts.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102170163

[DaddyTorgo]

If I could cross-post this to political threads I would in. In other news, Ted Cruz denounces Net Neutrality as "Obamacare for the Internet," torpedoes 2016 presidential bid before it ever starts.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102170163

Wow - what a clueless buffoon.

Or a mendacious, dissembling, snake-oil salesmen.

Take your pick.

[SirFozzie]

Why not both?

[Buccaneer]

So despite earlier discussions that this is not cut and dried, it suddenly has become such?

[claphamsa]

Dear Senator Ted Cruz, I'm going to explain to you how Net Neutrality ACTUALLY works - The Oatmeal (http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality)

[PilotMan]

Dear Senator Ted Cruz, I'm going to explain to you how Net Neutrality ACTUALLY works - The Oatmeal (http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality)

loved it!

[SackAttack]

So despite earlier discussions that this is not cut and dried, it suddenly has become such?

What isn't cut and dried is "the proper approach to preserving net neutrality."

What is cut and dried is that if net neutrality enforcement is gutted, the only people who benefit will be telecom bean counters. Ultimately, end users will pay more if telecoms are allowed to create pay lanes. Either they'll sell internet access to the end user cable TV style, or they'll charge the businesses for access to the users, and the businesses will pass those costs on.

Ted Cruz's stance here is essentially akin to government using public dollars to pay for a road and then turning around and handing the road over to a private entity to profit off of the public for no reason other than JOB CREATORS or some shit.

[RainMaker]

The removal of net neutrality wouldn't be a big deal if there was competition in the ISP space.

[sterlingice]

The removal of net neutrality wouldn't be a big deal if there was competition in the ISP space.

Or at least substantially less of a big deal

SI

[JonInMiddleGA]

The removal of net neutrality wouldn't be a big deal if there was competition in the ISP space.

Off the top of my head sitting here I can choose from AT&T, Charter plus at least 1-2 satellite driven options (which I'm pretty sure suck but they still exists).

While that's not a cornucopia of choices, it's not a monopoly either.

[Coffee Warlord]

Off the top of my head sitting here I can choose from AT&T, Charter plus at least 1-2 satellite driven options (which I'm pretty sure suck but they still exists).

While that's not a cornucopia of choices, it's not a monopoly either.

So, to be fair, you have 2 you know of. Shitty satellite internet access is not internet access.

There are numerous people at my office who have 1 option only. I have 3. At my prior address, I had 1 option until about 6 months before I moved.

There is a decent number of areas that have 1 or 2 options, total. And that choice usually winds up being Cable or DSL. It's as close to a monopoly as you're gonna get.

[JonInMiddleGA]

So, to be fair, you have 2 you know of. Shitty satellite internet access is not internet access.

There are numerous people at my office who have 1 option only. I have 3. At my prior address, I had 1 option until about 6 months before I moved.

There is a decent number of areas that have 1 or 2 options, total. And that choice usually winds up being Cable or DSL. It's as close to a monopoly as you're gonna get.

2 is not a monopoly however, especially if they aren't acting in collusion (and Charter vs AT&T has too much competitive smack talk for me to think that's the case)

It's not like, say, cable television where it's still one & only one option here. That's really the only point I was shooting for. Although three miles up/down the highway here give or take, U-Verse breaks that monotony up a bit.

[sterlingice]

2 is not a monopoly however, especially if they aren't acting in collusion (and Charter vs AT&T has too much competitive smack talk for me to think that's the case)

It's not like, say, cable television where it's still one & only one option here. That's really the only point I was shooting for. Although three miles up/down the highway here give or take, U-Verse breaks that monotony up a bit.

It's strange that in every place I've lived that the price for the cable company and former phone company is almost identical. I mean, seriously, when I was looking a year ago in Houston, literally the only difference in prices for the main two plans (cable/internet and cable/internet/phone) was Comcast charging $50 more than AT&T for installation: plans the same, additional cable boxes the same, HDDVR the same.

That sounds a lot like collusion to me. Even if it's not active collusion, it's two sides perfectly content to not really compete because both make a ton of money on the model. And it was like this in Richmond after FIOS went through their initial promo blitz to get into the area. Indy was not for me because where we lived, Comcast was my only option.

SI

[PilotMan]

Deregulation in the airlines was just awesome and there's never been any collusion there!

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Just to give a contrasting example, I obviously have Google Fiber incoming. The existing options are Time Warner and Uverse. Uverse is the better option IMO currently. Had a friend call Uverse and mention that Google Fiber is on the way and he's looking to switch. Uverse offered all movie channels for free for one year plus the upper tier for free for one year. Basically was over $200 worth of service for around $79/month.

Another friend did the same thing and was offered all movie channels free for one year plus free basic internet service.

Moral of the story: If you get a legitimate provider in your area to compete with the big dogs, they suddenly have a problem that results in them giving away the farm to remain competitive.

[PilotMan]

So a legitimate competitor is really only legit because they are a massive, multilayer conglomeration with a market cap of over 370 billion.

Not exactly your mom and pop business, not exactly a grass roots business building it's way up with a better product. The only way that the others even care is because GOOG is such a giant and has the ability to put something together like Fiber. TW has a cap of 65B while ATT has a cap of 181B. It's all about the Benjamins.

[RainMaker]

A large chunk of the country has only 1 provider available (think it's like 30%). And that includes major cities. A lot of the ISPs also work in collusion to either avoid areas or share costs. Local governments deserve some blame in this whole mess too.

Regardless, there isn't enough competition to eliminate net neutrality in my mind. Especially with such a low barrier for entry.

I'd also add that if they want to eliminate net neutrality, we should eliminate all subsidies. You want a free market on your infrastructure, then you should pay for your infrastructure without taxpayer help. Can't have it both ways.

[SackAttack]

A large chunk of the country has only 1 provider available (think it's like 30%). And that includes major cities. A lot of the ISPs also work in collusion to either avoid areas or share costs. Local governments deserve some blame in this whole mess too.

If you define 'local' as 'state,' yeah. There are cities that have tried to do internet offerings on a local level, and the ISPs have gone to the states to say "Here's a check for your next campaign and by the way would you do something about those cities that want to offer free wi-fi access?"

[Radii]

Moral of the story: If you get a legitimate provider in your area to compete with the big dogs, they suddenly have a problem that results in them giving away the farm to remain competitive.

And I don't want any of the things they're offering if it means Netflix is throttled by every ISP because that's just good business, until Netflix pays the extra fees to get that pipe open. And then when that happens, all of them create a "netflix tier" that's $20/mo more if you want Netflix to function. Similar thing with Youtube, especially since its owned by Google now.

[Dutch]

I hope to God to never see shit like Xfinity...that is the devil's work and whatever I need to support to crush that....I'm in.

[sooner333]

What does Netflix do to pay for the infrastructure?

[Desnudo]

So, to be fair, you have 2 you know of. Shitty satellite internet access is not internet access.

There are numerous people at my office who have 1 option only. I have 3. At my prior address, I had 1 option until about 6 months before I moved.

There is a decent number of areas that have 1 or 2 options, total. And that choice usually winds up being Cable or DSL. It's as close to a monopoly as you're gonna get.

It's a type of oligopoly called a duopoly and it's not much better than a monopoly usually. Collusion doesn't need to be explicit to set the market.

[PilotMan]

https://www.facebook.com/SenatorTedCruz/posts/641819565930347

I just got lost for 30 minutes in the comments section.

[JonInMiddleGA]

"Internet as utility" , as a concept, does nothing to insure -- or create -- additional competition. If anything, it makes it seem less likely.

Or do I have choices for my electric and water service I'm not aware of?

As much as anything, the framing of the issue creates opposition.

[DaddyTorgo]

"Internet as utility" , as a concept, does nothing to insure -- or create -- additional competition. If anything, it makes it seem less likely.

Or do I have choices for my electric and water service I'm not aware of?

As much as anything, the framing of the issue creates opposition.

So are you against the concept, or are you just saying that the framing of it is poor?

[PilotMan]

It doesn't need competition. It needs to be something that everyone has access to. It's too ingrained in the economy of life. It saves money and provides access to many things the middle and lower classes wouldn't be able to afford.

Why does there have to be competition for access to something that should be seen as a basic societal need? It was created and is still created by the masses. Why should companies have control over it just because they have the infrastructure that delivers it?

[DaddyTorgo]

It doesn't need competition. It needs to be something that everyone has access to. It's too ingrained in the economy of life. It saves money and provides access to many things the middle and lower classes wouldn't be able to afford.

Why does there have to be competition for access to something that should be seen as a basic societal need? It was created and is still created by the masses. Why should companies have control over it just because they have the infrastructure that delivers it?

Because that's the way the system is setup. We don't have a government-controlled ISP. The network is privately built, so therefore in order to ensure that everyone has access to it there needs to be measures in place to prevent price-gouging of consumers, right?

[dubb93]

What does Netflix do to pay for the infrastructure?

I don't think that is the issue. The issue is that I am paying my ISP for 250gb of data a month at X speed (in my case it's 50mbps.) However if I choose to use that data with Netflix, my ISP throttles my data and I end up getting a much slower speed....unless Netflix pays up. But what if Netflix doesn't pay up? Do I get a refund on speed? I definitely upgraded my speed twice.

Without Net Nuetrility this is legal and it is actually happening now. It doesn't matter which ISP I choose. Every one in my area (all two of them) are throttling Netflix. Even if I'm 200+Gb below my cap each month.

[JonInMiddleGA]

So are you against the concept, or are you just saying that the framing of it is poor?

In the absence of specific detailed proposals (that I've seen) of what constitutes "one side or the other", I'm making the observation that I believe the framing this week by Obama was poor. Positioning it as "like a utility" (which seems to be the narrative if not a direct quote) does exactly nothing to reassure somebody like me.

Namely, someone who is fairly open to net neutrality concepts (f 'da party lines) as long as it can be made to appear both fiscally & regulatory reasonable. Saying "utility" conjures neither fiscal nor regulatory reasonable to me.

edit to add: I get the fuck gouged out of me on water rates by governmentally controlled "utilities". I've had a geographic monopoly on electricity, legally mandated in Georgia (is that true everywhere?), with at best questionable pricing, for my entire life. I've seen telephone service & pricing go to hell for years after deregulation, only now really seeing perhaps that situation start to finally turn to the consumer (now that we barely use landlines). Cable we've already addressed. See why I'm loathe to have the internet become a "utility"?

[DaddyTorgo]

So it's the framing - in which case I agree with you. "Like a utility" is not the best way to frame it to get bipartisan popular support.

[cartman]

"Obama saying it" is not the best way to get bipartisan popular support.

FTFY

I think the utility analogy is the best one to use. You flip a light switch, you expect the lights to come on. You turn on a faucet, you expect water to come out. You pick up a phone, you expect a dial tone. The Internet has become pervasive and intertwined enough that is should act as dependable and reliable as other utilities that are part of our daily lives, and be held to those standards.

[JonInMiddleGA]

The Internet has become pervasive and intertwined enough that is should act as dependable and reliable as other utilities that are part of our daily lives, and be held to those standards.

So overpriced & under responsive, with little to no concern aside from how to screw us all out of every dime possible?

Sounds fun.

[cartman]

So overpriced & under responsive, with little to no concern aside from how to screw us all out of every dime possible?

Sounds fun.

Not everything can be as fun as sitting around complaining about everything, drinking coffee and smoking cigarettes.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Not everything can be as fun as sitting around complaining about everything, drinking coffee and smoking cigarettes.

Well of course not.

But aside from pricing -- and then only maybe -- I hold my ISP in higher regard than I hold most of the utilities I've dealt with in the past 30 years. That's all I'm saying.

[RainMaker]

Well of course not.

But aside from pricing -- and then only maybe -- I hold my ISP in higher regard than I hold most of the utilities I've dealt with in the past 30 years. That's all I'm saying.

Most people don't though. The cable companies consistently rank at the top of the most hated companies in America list.

Maybe it's different here, but I rarely have issues with my utilities. Once in a blue moon the power will go out during a bad storm. Never had an issue with water or gas either. And we get some brutal winters in Chicago.

[RainMaker]

What does Netflix do to pay for the infrastructure?

Nothing. They aren't selling internet access. They are selling a service for people with internet access. This is like complaining that Apple isn't pitching in for the cost of the power lines because people use electricity to power their phones.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Most people don't though. The cable companies consistently rank at the top of the most hated companies in America list.

Maybe it's different here, but I rarely have issues with my utilities. Once in a blue moon the power will go out during a bad storm. Never had an issue with water or gas either. And we get some brutal winters in Chicago.

Water rates in some areas -- like the little town I lived in when I first arrived to the FOFC -- are crippling for small business. It's not usage, we're talking about a tiny clothing store or a cell phone store in a tiny storefront. Ditto homeowners, with a basic rate unaffected by usage of $60/month, if you never use a drop. Likewise the cost of electricity.

Truth is, cable companies never entered my mind when we talk about "utilities", I haven't been a cable customer in over 20 years.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Nothing. They aren't selling internet access. They are selling a service for people with internet access. This is like complaining that Apple isn't pitching in for the cost of the power lines because people use electricity to power their phones.

Okay, just for discussion, let's run with that analogy a second.

If electrical demand exceeds certain boundaries (which can happen in the summer in particular), the power company has the ability & the right to restrict -- through rolling blackouts -- supply to their customers.

Likewise water use restrictions (although to a lesser extent since it's a more exhaustible commodity).

But if those restrictions can exist, then why can't bandwidth limits?

[Buccaneer]

I would say that utilities is more of a basic right than internet and even with utilities, significant restrictions on its usage and availability can apply. Just like with water here in the arid West, it's better to restrict all people to a little usage than to allow a wide-open spigot (which the irrigationists would consume all just for themselves if allowed). My company has applied both restrictions during the drought years and with the last one, a three-tiered rate system solely based on usage.

[Buccaneer]

Frankly, I had assumed that we would have gone to a pay-for-site model a long time ago. But I had underestimated the public's demand/tolerance/interest for ads (which seems to have been paying for the infrastructure growth, along with high cable/satellite fees).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Frankly, I had assumed that we would have gone to a pay-for-site model a long time ago. But I had underestimated the public's demand/tolerance/interest for ads (which seems to have been paying for the infrastructure growth, along with high cable/satellite fees).

Forrester: US Online Display Ad Spending will Nearly Double by 2019 - CMO Today - WSJ (http://blogs.wsj.com/cmo/2014/10/06/forrester-us-online-display-ad-spending-will-nearly-double-by-2019/)

Add that new focus on video ads (as opposed to static display ads) to the demands on bandwidth. 30-60 secs, 30-60 there, it starts to add up.

[Buccaneer]

Ok, make that greatly underestimated. I still don't understand how people can tolerate ads (static or video) but I guess that's always been the price to pay for broadcasting and access.

[RainMaker]

Okay, just for discussion, let's run with that analogy a second.

If electrical demand exceeds certain boundaries (which can happen in the summer in particular), the power company has the ability & the right to restrict -- through rolling blackouts -- supply to their customers.

Likewise water use restrictions (although to a lesser extent since it's a more exhaustible commodity).

But if those restrictions can exist, then why can't bandwidth limits?

Electrical companies are heavily regulated to protect consumers from pricing that would be exorbitant.

Now I have no problem with a pay for use system. It makes sense that the person using 500gb a month pay more than the person using 10gb. But with no real competition in the marketplace, the pricing will never be fair for a service that is becoming a necessity.

[cuervo72]

Ok, make that greatly underestimated. I still don't understand how people can tolerate ads (static or video) but I guess that's always been the price to pay for broadcasting and access.

So you'd pay to come here, right?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Ok, make that greatly underestimated. I still don't understand how people can tolerate ads (static or video) but I guess that's always been the price to pay for broadcasting and access.

fwiw I don't get it either. With the exception of a couple of sites, if I can't thoroughly AdBlock you, I ain't visiting.

[Buccaneer]

So you'd pay to come here, right?

No, I wouldn't, much like a lot of things in my life I can do without and had left behind. Many other sites I would not go to if pay, FOFC would be one of the last though. I pay Comcast for email, my bank for online banking and Verizon for stuff on my Apple devices. Don't really need (as oppose to want/desire) anything else.

[Buccaneer]

To expand, I grew watching a lot of TV until I got sick of commercials, esp. during sporting events. I don't do premium cable (not worth the money, imo). So I pretty much left TV behind, which is no more of "right" than internet is. I think it's an amazing privilege to have stuff like youtube and online news/sports sites, not to mention interactive forums and instant access to games via steam et al but none of them are essential, no more than TV is. For iOS products, I have strongly favored paying for them to make them ad-free as oppose to the IAP model but unfortunately, a lot of them don't give you that choice.

[JPhillips]

I think internet is becoming a necessity if not a right. It's impossible for me to conceive of my daughter's homework with the internet and finding a job not in my local community would also be very difficult. Lots of things just aren't published in a hardcopy form anymore.

[RainMaker]

Jobs, employment searching, banking, schools, medicine, and most of our daily social interactions aren't moving toward TV though. I think the internet would be closer to the phone company than to TV.

[Buccaneer]

I think internet is becoming a necessity if not a right. It's impossible for me to conceive of my daughter's homework with the internet and finding a job not in my local community would also be very difficult. Lots of things just aren't published in a hardcopy form anymore.

I understand (except for the homework part), it has become yet another form of media. But we've become spoiled with expectation that none of this cost any money. You didn't read newspapers or magazine for free back in the day, except when going to the library, because they cost money to produce. I don't know the comparative cost for the internet infrastructure per customer, so maybe it is pretty low and can be spread out to everyone providing some level of access. Speed and perhaps what you can access (non-essential services) are probably premium, as they have always been in other mediums.

[Buccaneer]

Jobs, employment searching, banking, schools, medicine, and most of our daily social interactions aren't moving toward TV though. I think the internet would be closer to the phone company than to TV.

and we now pay more for phones and to the phone companies than we have ever had.

[cartman]

No, I wouldn't, much like a lot of things in my life I can do without and had left behind. Many other sites I would not go to if pay, FOFC would be one of the last though. I pay Comcast for email, my bank for online banking and Verizon for stuff on my Apple devices. Don't really need (as oppose to want/desire) anything else.

So, how would you like it if Comcast decided to partner up with a bank that wasn't the one you use, and it negatively affected your ability to bank online with your current bank?

[RainMaker]

and we now pay more for phones and to the phone companies than we have ever had.

How do you figure? I can remember when we'd pay like $1/minute for long distance.

[Buccaneer]

How do you figure? I can remember when we'd pay like $1/minute for long distance.

Sure but I am paying Verizon $50/month per phone (x4) even if I use no data. Don't recall ever paying that much in the old days even with long distance charges.

[cuervo72]

So, how would you like it if Comcast decided to partner up with a bank that wasn't the one you use, and it negatively affected your ability to bank online with your current bank?

Or if Comcast decided to charge per connection to Steam (I know, I'm sure Bucc installed Civ V via 87 3.5" disks).

[Buccaneer]

So, how would you like it if Comcast decided to partner up with a bank that wasn't the one you use, and it negatively affected your ability to bank online with your current bank?

Then I would simply go to the bank in person like we used to, remember? :) But point taken.

Rhetorical question: Have we all sold our souls for the sake of convenience and immediacy? Knowing that this is not a modern question (people said that about the coming of the railroads) but companies and governments still want their ever-stronger control and influence and thus, how much are willing to give up or to pay for that?

[Buccaneer]

Or if Comcast decided to charge per connection to Steam (I know, I'm sure Bucc installed Civ V via 87 3.5" disks).

No, 9 boxes of punch cards.

But you do remember playing a lot of great games for many hours before 1994, didn't you? ;) Game publishers will always want to sell games to the public as they always have - just the mechanism to do so have changed and will continue to change. If one option ceases to be viable, then another one will take its place.

[cuervo72]

I remember games that were near impossible to get patches for. I also remember having to go to the store (usually in a mall) to find games and take blind chances on ones I'd never heard of before (the games threads here alone give me so much more info on games than I had before).

I also remember things like...phone books! Video stores! Buying things via the Sears Catalog! Doing research via a 20-year-old World Book Encyclopedia! :D

[cuervo72]

Dola - I also remember games only being multiplayer if someone was over your house. Which is very convenient as a 41yo...

[cartman]

Doing research via a 20-year-old World Book Encyclopedia! :D

What do you mean Ceylon isn't a country? Next you'll tell me the Shah isn't the ruler of Iran anymore.

[cuervo72]

What do you mean Ceylon isn't a country? Next you'll tell me the Shah isn't the ruler of Iran anymore.

Hey, according to my books Floyd Patterson is the heavyweight champ.


I also remember having to go to a travel agency to arrange any sort of trip (plane tickets, accommodations). And the AAA TripTiks! (Ok, those were pretty cool, but I've always liked maps. Oh, for the days of a Rand McNally atlas.)

[Buccaneer]

Not saying the 'old days' were better, just pointing out how things have changed and will change. I just wonder out loud the cost of expectations.

[Buccaneer]

I think internet is becoming a necessity if not a right. It's impossible for me to conceive of my daughter's homework with the internet and finding a job not in my local community would also be very difficult. Lots of things just aren't published in a hardcopy form anymore.

Sorry to keep belaboring the point but I get the impression that if you can't do it (like homework assignments) through the internet, then people will throw up their hands and say that there's no way it can then happen (like giving your daughter a homework assignment). We are all pretty adaptable and I'm sure there will be ways to give out a homework assignment if one cannot get it online.

[DaddyTorgo]

Sure but I am paying Verizon $50/month per phone (x4) even if I use no data. Don't recall ever paying that much in the old days even with long distance charges.

cell phones /= landlines

apples to oranges

[cuervo72]

Well, if I wanted to order a pizza from Domino's over the phone, I wouldn't expect my phone carrier to reroute the call to Papa John's. That wouldn't fly, would it? But we're living in a corporate world where there are official sponsors for everything, you have to pour Powerade into Gatorade cups if you want to drink it at certain events, you can't be seen wearing certain shoes or apparel or jackets (http://www.uni-watch.com/wp-content/uploads/20141109_214536.jpeg)...what's to say Comcast couldn't have an Official Pizza, and all traffic to other pizza sites is redirected to that site? Seems trivial and ridiculous, but don't think that they wouldn't or couldn't do it if they thought they could. Repeat that for however many other products and services.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Sorry to keep belaboring the point but I get the impression that if you can't do it (like homework assignments) through the internet, then people will throw up their hands and say that there's no way it can then happen (like giving your daughter a homework assignment). We are all pretty adaptable and I'm sure there will be ways to give out a homework assignment if one cannot get it online.

I think you just grossly overestimated the average American.

[JPhillips]

Sure, they could give homework that doesn't require the internet, but right now some of the homework requires the internet. A single family without the internet in a culture that nearly requires it is a real problem that manifests in several ways.

[stevew]

I see these caps and it's always confusing cause they try to label an average user as X, but I'm often in the heavier user category. But it's not like I'm streaming Supernatural on netflix for 12 hours a day or feel like online gaming is my second job either. If they wanna do caps, it totally needs to be neutral cause you're paying for X amount of GB a month. If it's unmetered usage it gets a bit more fuzzy. I'd hate to see widespread caps as whenever I get on a binge fit a few weeks at a time I can chew some data up.

[sterlingice]

Not saying the 'old days' were better, just pointing out how things have changed and will change. I just wonder out loud the cost of expectations.

But I think the important thing to consider in any equation like this is

Benefits of Old - Cost of Old
vs
Benefit of New - Cost of New - Cost of Change

I think too often, we minimize "Cost of Old" and over exaggerate "Cost of New" and "Cost of Change"

SI

[sterlingice]

No, 9 boxes of punch cards.

:D

SI

[SportsDino]

I am tempted to fire up some of my old code and monitor my own traffic to see how much bandwidth streaming netflix takes and how much traffic is wasted (assuming the metric is bytes sent over the wire). With all this talk of caps and prioritized traffic there may be a market for my old tech to maximize traffic flow (think transparent BitTorrent like layer underneath all internet traffic). I bet I could even start an arms race with the comcast packet routers to a degree with a little traffic shaping.

The concept of a pay lane itself is great, as long as they do not sabotage traffic from a reasonable baseline. The problem is it is easier to screw up traffic than to add capacity, so losing a few packets here and there and advertising a fast lane which is pure artifice will be a likely gimmick.

In my opinion internet bandwidth should be decoupled from retail servicing and commoditized. It is easy to regulate at a low level and the big infrastructure guys still have a mint while competition at the retail level will be easier. It would be anti-oligopoly though so they would have massive incentives to kill it off.

[Desnudo]

FTFY

I think the utility analogy is the best one to use. You flip a light switch, you expect the lights to come on. You turn on a faucet, you expect water to come out. You pick up a phone, you expect a dial tone. The Internet has become pervasive and intertwined enough that is should act as dependable and reliable as other utilities that are part of our daily lives, and be held to those standards.

The difference is you don't need the water to come out 10x faster a year from now. I'd rather have Comcast than the US federal government running my internet. This isn't South Korea.

On a side note - I actually think Verizon FIOS is pretty good, at least in the DFW area. Always had good customer service and my speed test matches what I pay for.

[cartman]

The difference is you don't need the water to come out 10x faster a year from now. I'd rather have Comcast than the US federal government running my internet. This isn't South Korea.

On a side note - I actually think Verizon FIOS is pretty good, at least in the DFW area. Always had good customer service and my speed test matches what I pay for.

But if you have a PUR filter on your faucet, and all of a sudden you could only run 0.1 gal/min through it when before you could run a gallon a minute, but the water company tells you if you buy brand X you'll get your 1/gal minute back, that would be an issue.

That's thing. You have good bandwidth now with FIOS, but without net neutrality, certain sites that you get to fine today (Netflix for example) might get put on the 'not preferred/not fast track' list, and you'd have to pony up to get back to the speed you were used to.

[RainMaker]

This isn't South Korea.


It sure isn't. South Korea gets 3 times the download speeds, 12 times the upload speeds, all for a third of the price we pay.

[sterlingice]

The difference is you don't need the water to come out 10x faster a year from now. I'd rather have Comcast than the US federal government running my internet. This isn't South Korea.

On a side note - I actually think Verizon FIOS is pretty good, at least in the DFW area. Always had good customer service and my speed test matches what I pay for.

That's funny, I'd much rather have my municipality or state or whatever providing some baseline internet to compete against the artificial oligopoly in my area. It's so odd that I can only choose from Comcast and AT&T when other places have Time Warner, Cox, Verizon, and more. But strangely, everywhere I live, I have had, at most, 2 real choices.

Yet, if my suburb wanted to create a competing ISP, they could not because of state regulations that make no sense unless you're trying to curb any competition through legal means. Look, if the government sucks at the internet, then what competition does Comcast have to fear? Unless they know they've been sandbagging for years and our internet in this country is pathetic but with no competition, there's no incentive to change.

I know that I, for one, would hate to pay 1/10th as much money for 10x the speed:

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--iRMqdBbV--/18mmly05fihgrjpg.jpg

Internet Speeds and Costs Around the World, Shown Visually (http://gizmodo.com/5390014/internet-speeds-and-costs-around-the-world-shown-visually)

SI

[Neon_Chaos]

From an outsider's point of view, I always thought that the fight for US Net Neutrality was not about increasing speeds, but to prevent ISPs from throttling down speeds to certain websites and services at their own discretion. Please correct me if I am wrong.

[DaddyTorgo]

From an outsider's point of view, I always thought that the fight for US Net Neutrality was not about increasing speeds, but to prevent ISPs from throttling down speeds to certain websites and services at their own discretion. Please correct me if I am wrong.

That is the primary concern I would say.

Increased speed due to increased competition is sort of a second or third-level benefit.

[JPhillips]

From an outsider's point of view, I always thought that the fight for US Net Neutrality was not about increasing speeds, but to prevent ISPs from throttling down speeds to certain websites and services at their own discretion. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Yes. At least initially, it will be easier to profit by reducing speed and charging more rather than building new infrastructure.

[Buccaneer]

Another thing that amazes me is how such a large country such as US with its relatively low population density can be on par with my smaller and higher density countries. But then I know that there are parts of the US that has poor coverage/speed, which balances those that are exceptional.

My interest in all of this (which extends beyond net neutrality) is the infrastructure to 1) get more choices in metro areas and 2) get better coverage in rural areas. Those will come at a cost but as mobile usage has exponentially rose, the bandwidths (and available) has not kept up. What the ramifications of such cost are (esp. to ensure wider coverage), I don't know.

[JPhillips]

My interest in all of this (which extends beyond net neutrality) is the infrastructure to 1) get more choices in metro areas

This is the part that has me worried. If there was robust competition companies couldn't get away with reducing speeds, but when there's only one or two choices the fear of abuse is justified.

[Buccaneer]

To me, the most important factor is cost, not speed or content and thus, need better market competition.

[flere-imsaho]

One of my big issues with all of this is that the vast majority of the copper infrastructure was built with taxpayer money. Much of the fiber infrastructure is being built privately, but with significant taxpayer-funded incentives. So on top of re-selling a resource paid for by the taxpayer, these companies are reaping large profits and complaining that they need more money from the taxpayer/consumer. It's all just a bit much to take.

[cartman]

Another thing that amazes me is how such a large country such as US with its relatively low population density can be on par with my smaller and higher density countries.

The reason it can be is that while the overall population density of the US is low, we have a TON of areas with nearly 0 population density. About 80% of the US population lives in urban areas. Which is actually high compared to most other countries.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS

[JonInMiddleGA]

That's funny, I'd much rather have my municipality or state or whatever providing some baseline internet to compete against the artificial oligopoly in my area.

And I can't think of anything I'd want less, there's no less capable or trustworthy entity for pretty much anything than local government, and that pretty much covers all of the ones I've lived under.

Better to turn the project over to 3 drunken chimps and a gecko.

[ISiddiqui]

What does Netflix do to pay for the infrastructure?

I don't think that is the issue. The issue is that I am paying my ISP for 250gb of data a month at X speed (in my case it's 50mbps.) However if I choose to use that data with Netflix, my ISP throttles my data and I end up getting a much slower speed....unless Netflix pays up. But what if Netflix doesn't pay up? Do I get a refund on speed? I definitely upgraded my speed twice.

Without Net Nuetrility this is legal and it is actually happening now. It doesn't matter which ISP I choose. Every one in my area (all two of them) are throttling Netflix. Even if I'm 200+Gb below my cap each month.

Nothing. They aren't selling internet access. They are selling a service for people with internet access. This is like complaining that Apple isn't pitching in for the cost of the power lines because people use electricity to power their phones.

Sooner actually asks an important question, which is NOT secondary in this discussion here. I tend to be on the (moderate) left sphere of things, but I can easily see why cable companies are worried about net neutrality under the current state of affairs. Netflix uses something like half of the bandwith in this country. However, it is the cable companies (mostly, fiber optic companies are coming along more and more quickly) that are under the hook for building the infrastructure to be able to support that. Netflix pays nothing for its taxing of the current infrastructure - which produces pressure on the cable companies to update said infrastructure.

So the cable companies say, Netflix pay us for your huge use of bandwith or else we'll slow you down so you don't use as much. I actually don't see that as something horrible.

The alternative, of course, if all content providers can access as much bandwith as possible, the cost is going to be passed onto the consumers. Data caps will be strictly enforced, as the phone companies have already begun to do.

So that's the tradeoff question, really. Do we want content providers to pay based on their usage (and that can be done in other ways than creating a 'fast lane' - maybe a price based on bandwith used) or do we want the consumers to pay? Now, the most economically efficient usage would probably be to have consumers pay - but do we really want that?

[ISiddiqui]

I understand (except for the homework part), it has become yet another form of media. But we've become spoiled with expectation that none of this cost any money.

This x1000. This also manifests itself in torrenting Premium shows. In that people feel they have a right to watch certain TV programs without paying for it, or paying what they feel like they want to and the time they want to.

[Buccaneer]

My company has installed a fiber network (with redundancy) covering the whole city for our wan backbone. Since the beginning, we have always set aside a portion of the band with for commercial use, which we charge an arm and leg.

Also, 15 years ago, Adelphia invested in our city to put fiber backbones throughout all residential and commercial areas (200 sq miles?). Their exhorbant investment was justified by ensuring exclusivity as well as tax breaks or else they would not have done it.

[DaddyTorgo]

Also, 15 years ago, Adelphia invested in our city to put fiber backbones throughout all residential and commercial areas (200 sq miles?). Their exhorbant investment was justified by ensuring exclusivity as well as tax breaks or else they would not have done it.

How many years of exclusivity should they get for that though? I'd imagine they'd have recouped their costs + a degree of profit by now?

[cartman]

Netflix peaks at about 35% of Internet bandwidth used. But for ISPs to say they are being overloaded is a bit wrong. Overall available bandwidth used on the Internet (at least in the US for the major providers) rarely tops 25% of available bandwidth.

And that they pay nothing for bandwidth is a bit incorrect. Their infrastructure is hosted on Amazon's cloud, and they definitely pay for outgoing data. So the ISPs are getting paid.

[ISiddiqui]

And that they pay nothing for bandwidth is a bit incorrect. Their infrastructure is hosted on Amazon's cloud, and they definitely pay for outgoing data. So the ISPs are getting paid.

This is the first I've heard of this. Do you have any more information about how much ISPs are getting paid by content providers? Is it done on a per GB basis?

[JonInMiddleGA]

This is the first I've heard of this. Do you have any more information about how much ISPs are getting paid by content providers? Is it done on a per GB basis?

In the case of Netflix, I've seen the phrase "an undisclosed amount" used this week.

[cartman]

This is the first I've heard of this. Do you have any more information about how much ISPs are getting paid by content providers? Is it done on a per GB basis?

It would be whatever Amazon worked out with the various ISPs they use for their data centers. I know that from my experience with it, usually there is some sort of flat rate negotiated for traffic up to a certain point, then a per MB/GB/TB charge for outbound traffic that exceeds that amount.

[ISiddiqui]

Well, I know Netflix is paying their OWN ISP who they use to upload their streams. But do they pay the ISPs that their streams are traveling upon?

I fear that saying they shouldn't have to do that amounts to basically Comcast/Time Warner, etc building roads for everyone to use and being prevented from taking tolls. Which doesn't particularly sit well with me.

[ISiddiqui]

It would be whatever Amazon worked out with the various ISPs they use for their data centers. I know that from my experience with it, usually there is some sort of flat rate negotiated for traffic up to a certain point, then a per MB/GB/TB charge for outbound traffic that exceeds that amount.

But that's just the ISPs for their data center, right?

[Radii]

This is the first I've heard of this. Do you have any more information about how much ISPs are getting paid by content providers? Is it done on a per GB basis?

What Everyone Gets Wrong in the Debate Over Net Neutrality | WIRED (http://www.wired.com/2014/06/net_neutrality_missing/)

FCC gets Comcast, Verizon to reveal Netflix’s paid peering deals | Ars Technica (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/fcc-gets-comcast-verizon-to-reveal-netflixs-paid-peering-deals/)

Not sure if specific details are available on the deals.

[ISiddiqui]

What Everyone Gets Wrong in the Debate Over Net Neutrality | WIRED (http://www.wired.com/2014/06/net_neutrality_missing/)

FCC gets Comcast, Verizon to reveal Netflix’s paid peering deals | Ars Technica (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/fcc-gets-comcast-verizon-to-reveal-netflixs-paid-peering-deals/)

Not sure if specific details are available on the deals.

Thanks! It looks like the Wired one is necessary reading. In that Netflix by paying more to Comcast simply was to make a direct connection to Comcast - which probably should require a greater cost.

[dubb93]

I fear that saying they shouldn't have to do that amounts to basically Comcast/Time Warner, etc building roads for everyone to use and being prevented from taking tolls. Which doesn't particularly sit well with me.

That isn't a real fair comparison. The toll is being paid on the other end. You are arguing that Comcast gets to build a road and that your family should have to pay to use it...and then you should have to pay for them to use it too since they are coming to visit you.

You can't argue that the toll isn't getting paid. Comcast has never been accused of giving people internet for free.

[SteveMax58]

Apologies for the novel in advance. :D

Yes the wired article is a very good overview and the diagram in the article is also very illustrative. One additional point I'd add is that the "internet backbone" depiction is (obviously & necessarily) high level but picture anywhere from 5-20 more "hands" (or providers if you will) in that little box where each of those 5 to 20 have individual connections with individual arrangements and throughput. Its really a completely different setup than what most people seem to believe based on the Netflix arguments, which to be perfectly frank, are intentionally clouding the issue of net neutrality.

A couple of thoughts while reading thru the thread (and seeing the general reactions elsewhere).

First point....People commonly say things like "if I purchase 50 Mbps internet access, I should get 50 Mbps to Netflix, or Microsoft, or whoever". When you purchase 50 Mbps (or whatever connection you have) to the internet (via your ISP, or "Access Provider" such as Comcast or Verizon), you are getting 50 Mbps to that ISP's handoff point(s), in principle. You are not (and I will say should not reasonably expect to be) getting 50 Mbps to ANYWHERE ON THE INTERNET.

Think about what that would really mean....that would mean every access connection needs to have guaranteed bandwidth to EVERY OTHER ACCESS CONNECTION ON THE INTERNET. It isn't even fathomable how much backbone bandwidth that would require but suffice it to say, the world cannot do that. Hence why the argument that Netflix puts forth publicly is disingenuous at best.

If Netflix wants you to have 50 Mbps (or 10, or 20, whatever) direct to them available, then they should be reserving that much bandwidth on THEIR interconnects for each customer. That would of course not be viable for them to remain in business and thats why they don't do it. The alternative is to have a reasonably big pipe direct to ISPs and then cache content strategically within ISPs, to lower the aggregate throughput needed. So when you stream a movie, the contents of that movie are cached so that others within your same footprint also want to watch it, it will not cost them 2x the throughput. It does however cost the ISP twice the delivery bandwidth to you (not that anybody is complaining, but just being illustrative).


Second point....there are legitimate concerns that can be debated in regards to Title II classification. Yes, its true that technology has gotten to a very scary place in terms of what can be done by a (relatively) few hands with regards to the internet. Using the preferred pizza partner example mentioned before, while not impossible to redirect pages, the more likely scenario (due to public outrage, if for no other reason), is that the preferred partner will pay for advertising for customers that are "looking for pizza". So yeah you'll basically get annoying ads (on certain browsers but thats not any different than what the Googles of the world want to do with your Chrome browser, your connected home automation, or anything else. Its called monetizing and the least expensive direct cost to the consumer (i.e. you aren't paying per site visited, just the access charge). But I do concede that just because something isn't done today, doesn't mean it couldn't be more enticing at some point in the future. Hence the need for honest and informed debate on the subject.


Third point....it seems to be a meme that cable/telco ISPs are just sitting around content to not get their infrastructure capable of offering higher & higher speeds. I can tell you with absolute certainty that most ISPs have at minimum doubled and triple their individual data links (to end customers) and aggregate data links (to other providers) EVERY year for the past 8 years (and sometimes doubled twice in the same year, like in 2011). Now some of that is technology based (i.e. legacy HFC for cable, legacy twisted pair for telco), and not making technology leaps as soon as they could have, but thats what you get with large & bloated companies sometimes...little incentive to innovate. Couple that with the leaps coinciding with the Great Recession, and probably more hesitation than you'd want. Not a good excuse, but just pointing it out.

It also may not seem like it, may not be universally true in every corner of the country, and may be less common in rural markets where there is less competition....but increased speed is the absolute focus of a lot of people & companies.


Fourth point....On competition, the fact that the 3rd entrant to most major markets had to be Google should give some indication of the level of cost involved with digging up cities/suburbs & burying new fiber (i.e. look how long its taken them to build out KC with no ROI...who else could afford to that?). And the fact that Google had cities compete by showing they were capable of removing the red tape should also indicate how difficult it is for new entrants.

[sterlingice]

Fourth point....On competition, the fact that the 3rd entrant to most major markets had to be Google should give some indication of the level of cost involved with digging up cities/suburbs & burying new fiber (i.e. look how long its taken them to build out KC with no ROI...who else could afford to that?). And the fact that Google had cities compete by showing they were capable of removing the red tape should also indicate how difficult it is for new entrants.

Isn't the latter point somewhat disingenuous as it's typically the major ISPs lobbying to erect said red tape?

Again, the fact that it's illegal to have municipal or state ISPs practically everywhere is a joke. It's akin to the argument against a public option for health insurance: either the government is so incompetent that the product is worthless so what do these companies have to fear? Or, the government is so efficient that with a profit motive, a profitable company has no way to compete (however that should be balanced with the needs of a society: if it can be offered as cost neutral but benefits society, shouldn't we do it?)

Instead, we end up with this mish-mash of "the government is so incompetent and they offer it too cheaply for us to complete", which is a logical impossibility.

SI

[ISiddiqui]

Great post, Steve!

[ISiddiqui]

That isn't a real fair comparison. The toll is being paid on the other end. You are arguing that Comcast gets to build a road and that your family should have to pay to use it...and then you should have to pay for them to use it too since they are coming to visit you.

You can't argue that the toll isn't getting paid. Comcast has never been accused of giving people internet for free.

Why can't Comcast, or a road owner, charge everyone who is using that road? You and the content provider are both using the road. You pay for access to the road and the content provider pays for moving their product along the road, no?

A toll may be getting paid, but it may not be the toll that Comcast wants. The way to potentially reduce the toll while improving service is likely doing things that get some more competition, rather than saying you can't take toll.

[cartman]

Why can't Comcast, or a road owner, charge everyone who is using that road? You and the content provider are both using the road. You pay for access to the road and the content provider pays for moving their product along the road, no?

A toll may be getting paid, but it may not be the toll that Comcast wants. The way to potentially reduce the toll while improving service is likely doing things that get some more competition, rather than saying you can't take toll.

Because the way the Internet is made, you aren't guaranteed to take the same route every time between two points. That's been the way it has been since the beginning.

[ISiddiqui]

No, you aren't. But it's the best analogy in my POV.

[SteveMax58]

Isn't the latter point somewhat disingenuous as it's typically the major ISPs lobbying to erect said red tape?
Well, there are 2 things that come to mind here.

1. In the minority of cases where there is exclusivity...that exclusivity was negotiated for as a tradeoff for giving fiber backbones to municipalities and the like. You might be surprised to know the levels of "gimme this, gimme that" when many franchise agreements were initially negotiated.

2. Where exclusivity couldn't be attained (which is the majority), incumbent land-based network owners certainly don't like the idea that they had to give a bag of goodies to be first, only to watch a competitor come in and be given carte blanche. But is that really something unexpected in any industry? And what markets was a 3rd entrant denied access in some major way? (i.e. I'm not talking about some random schmuck requesting easement access for his own neighborhood pet project)

Again, the fact that it's illegal to have municipal or state ISPs practically everywhere is a joke. It's akin to the argument against a public option for health insurance: either the government is so incompetent that the product is worthless so what do these companies have to fear? Or, the government is so efficient that with a profit motive, a profitable company has no way to compete (however that should be balanced with the needs of a society: if it can be offered as cost neutral but benefits society, shouldn't we do it?)

Instead, we end up with this mish-mash of "the government is so incompetent and they offer it too cheaply for us to complete", which is a logical impossibility.

SI
I don't disagree with the notion of public/private competition so long as the private company is not unfairly or unreasonably burdened where the public entity is not. Competition is usually good for consumers and for the workers.

I know of countless municipal systems throughout the country that have gone up in the past 20+ years...most of which failed & liquidated to a cable or telco because they weren't able to keep up with the rate of change.

But I think we're at a point where the rate of change is more manageable for a new entrant using a fiber to the home approach. Its relatively easy & affordable these days to do it as well compared to older technologies involving copper. But make no mistake, its still extremely expensive where most of the cost is really the labor to run and splice the fiber. Thats why I think Google is doing what they are doing, and I fully expect them to liquidate their systems at some point (perhaps it could take 10+ years though).

[SteveMax58]

Again, the fact that it's illegal to have municipal or state ISPs practically everywhere is a joke. It's akin to the argument against a public option for health insurance: either the government is so incompetent that the product is worthless so what do these companies have to fear? Or, the government is so efficient that with a profit motive, a profitable company has no way to compete (however that should be balanced with the needs of a society: if it can be offered as cost neutral but benefits society, shouldn't we do it?)
Just another point to add....it isn't really true that its illegal practically everywhere for municipalities to build their own infrastructure. Nor is it the majority (and I'm tempted to say vast majority but would need to look it up to be certain).

Certain companies are more vocal about lobbying the states they operate in to make it illegal, many times because they had actually built out large fiber networks for the states/municipalities, etc. for the right to even operate initially. Maybe they are still jerks for advocating to make it illegal but its not entirely without some merit.

[DaddyTorgo]

What's your background Steve? You speak like you've got some sort of background in the industry or something.

[sterlingice]

Just another point to add....it isn't really true that its illegal practically everywhere for municipalities to build their own infrastructure. Nor is it the majority (and I'm tempted to say vast majority but would need to look it up to be certain).

Certain companies are more vocal about lobbying the states they operate in to make it illegal, many times because they had actually built out large fiber networks for the states/municipalities, etc. for the right to even operate initially. Maybe they are still jerks for advocating to make it illegal but its not entirely without some merit.

Apparently the list of states with restrictions is 20 states and growing, as of early 2014. Not all of those are outright bans but they have a complete list and explain that almost every state that doesn't ban it outright but has unrealistic hurdles for naming somewhere as unserved or for much too accelerated profitability requirements. Unsurprisingly, most of these bills were done by ALEC.

ISP lobby has already won limits on public broadband in 20 states | Ars Technica (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/isp-lobby-has-already-won-limits-on-public-broadband-in-20-states/)

SI

[RainMaker]

However, it is the cable companies (mostly, fiber optic companies are coming along more and more quickly) that are under the hook for building the infrastructure to be able to support that. Netflix pays nothing for its taxing of the current infrastructure - which produces pressure on the cable companies to update said infrastructure.


This isn't true. Taxpayers have given enormous grants and subsidies to build the infrastructure. We handed hundreds of billions over in the 90's to build this out and they pocketed most of it. You'll see almost daily local and state governments handing out money to build out new infrastructure for these companies.

I just don't know how people can be fine with our current internet situation. We get our ass kicked by most 1st world countries. We have slower internet speeds than countries like Estonia. South Korea and Japan make a mockery of us. Why are we cool with not only that but letting it get worse?

[sterlingice]

I just don't know how people can be fine with our current internet situation. We get our ass kicked by most 1st world countries. We have slower internet speeds than countries like Estonia. South Korea and Japan make a mockery of us. Why are we cool with not only that but letting it get worse?

You can have internet that's built fast, runs good, and is cheap. Pick 0.

SI

[Buccaneer]

That's where I think the utilities analogy could fit better. The customer not only paid for the road (transmission and distribution line) but also the machine to generate the traffic (plants and substations). So after all of that, the customer has to pay every time they use that road and if that road gets jammed, they can't use the road.

[ISiddiqui]

Taxpayers have given enormous grants and subsidies to build the infrastructure. We handed hundreds of billions over in the 90's to build this out and they pocketed most of it.

How much and what was the deal?

[DaddyTorgo]

Apparently the list of states with restrictions is 20 states and growing, as of early 2014. Not all of those are outright bans but they have a complete list and explain that almost every state that doesn't ban it outright but has unrealistic hurdles for naming somewhere as unserved or for much too accelerated profitability requirements. Unsurprisingly, most of these bills were done by ALEC.

ISP lobby has already won limits on public broadband in 20 states | Ars Technica (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/isp-lobby-has-already-won-limits-on-public-broadband-in-20-states/)

SI

Mmmm....more ALEC goodness.

[SteveMax58]

Apparently the list of states with restrictions is 20 states and growing, as of early 2014. Not all of those are outright bans but they have a complete list and explain that almost every state that doesn't ban it outright but has unrealistic hurdles for naming somewhere as unserved or for much too accelerated profitability requirements. Unsurprisingly, most of these bills were done by ALEC.

ISP lobby has already won limits on public broadband in 20 states | Ars Technica (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/isp-lobby-has-already-won-limits-on-public-broadband-in-20-states/)

SI
Obviously it would take some time to research each of those states with some level of restriction, but I'd ask the question then....why aren't the other 30-ish doing a lot more buildouts then?

But many of those restrictions are around the way the municipality is allowed to offer the service (where service can be telecom, broadband or video), and the ability to go into debt for it and how they can package or bundle it. I would be curious when most of those restrictions came into play as a lot of municipalities had tried to do it in the late 90s & early 00s, and failed quite miserably at it. My gut tells me some of those restrictions (especially how they are worded) is around the idea that the states don't want to "bailout" those crazy municipalities that get in over their heads. No evidence for that, as I said you'd have to investigate each one and their approx legislative dates, but I'd bet money that is the motivation for some of those states' restrictions.

[SteveMax58]

What's your background Steve? You speak like you've got some sort of background in the industry or something.

Happy to PM more info privately but will say that yes, I have some insight into these topics. And while I guess it should go without saying, I try to put out my own opinion as opposed to what my company or the industry in general might argue. But naturally, with that insight could be a level of bias that is at least worth pointing out the possibility of (though I try to be as objective as I can be).

And I'm especially careful of not divulging things that aren't public knowledge (or could get me fired). :)

[DaddyTorgo]

That's fine - no real need for more info, was just curious.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Instead, we end up with this mish-mash of "the government is so incompetent and they offer it too cheaply for us to complete", which is a logical impossibility.

Not at all.

There are people who will pay $1 less to get utter garbage.

[RainMaker]

How much and what was the deal?

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 had a lot of money in it. It was given to states who doled it out. I think some have pegged it at $200 billion.

I, Cringely . The Pulpit . The $200 Billion Rip-Off | PBS (http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_002683.html)

There's a ton of smaller ones though that pop-up from time to time.

Decades Of Failed Promises From Verizon: It Promises Fiber To Get Tax Breaks... Then Never Delivers | Techdirt (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131012/02124724852/decades-failed-promises-verizon-it-promises-fiber-to-get-tax-breaks-then-never-delivers.shtml)

And of course the Universal Service Fund which we all pay into that goes back to the telecoms with little to no regulation. It's a tax we pay the government that funds the telecoms.

While Google Fiber is praised in Kansas City, they did receive some breaks too.

Taxpayers subsidizing Google Fiber project | Computerworld (http://www.computerworld.com/article/2492159/wireless-networking/taxpayers-subsidizing-google-fiber-project.html)

Basically the idea that these companies built the infrastructure on their own is false. Taxpayers funded and continue to fund large swaths of it.

[ISiddiqui]

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 had a lot of money in it. It was given to states who doled it out. I think some have pegged it at $200 billion.

I, Cringely . The Pulpit . The $200 Billion Rip-Off | PBS (http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_002683.html)


From the article:
It is on the state level where one can find the greatest excesses of the Telecommunications Act. All 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia contracted with their local telecommunication utilities for the build-out of fiber and hybrid fiber-coax networks intended to bring bidirectional digital video service to millions of homes by the year 2000. The Telecom Act set the mandate but, as it works with phone companies, the details were left to the states. Fifty-one plans were laid and 51 plans failed.

Over the decade from 1994-2004 the major telephone companies profited from higher phone rates paid by all of us, accelerated depreciation on their networks, and direct tax credits an average of $2,000 per subscriber for which the companies delivered precisely nothing in terms of service to customers. That's $200 billion with nothing to be shown for it.

This seems to talk about fiber networks, working with phone companies. Not cable broadband.

As do the rest of your links as well.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

While Google Fiber is praised in Kansas City, they did receive some breaks too.

Taxpayers subsidizing Google Fiber project | Computerworld (http://www.computerworld.com/article/2492159/wireless-networking/taxpayers-subsidizing-google-fiber-project.html)

Basically the idea that these companies built the infrastructure on their own is false. Taxpayers funded and continue to fund large swaths of it.

I've got no problem with the tax breaks that Google Fiber is getting from our city. The product they are delivering is more than worth it as opposed to many other tax breaks that never benefit the community and only benefit the business.

[JPhillips]

I've got no problem with the tax breaks that Google Fiber is getting from our city. The product they are delivering benefits me.

Fixed.

[Desnudo]

That's funny, I'd much rather have my municipality or state or whatever providing some baseline internet to compete against the artificial oligopoly in my area. It's so odd that I can only choose from Comcast and AT&T when other places have Time Warner, Cox, Verizon, and more. But strangely, everywhere I live, I have had, at most, 2 real choices.

Yet, if my suburb wanted to create a competing ISP, they could not because of state regulations that make no sense unless you're trying to curb any competition through legal means. Look, if the government sucks at the internet, then what competition does Comcast have to fear? Unless they know they've been sandbagging for years and our internet in this country is pathetic but with no competition, there's no incentive to change.

I know that I, for one, would hate to pay 1/10th as much money for 10x the speed:

SI

The point is having big gov run your internet would be great until about a year later when you need faster internet. Who's paying for that upgrade? Not the government based on everything else they've ever run. The internet is different from a typical utility in that it requires constant innovation.

I'm not saying the existing duopoly is the answer, but thinking our governments would do a better job in the long run is laughable.

If they want to enter as a competing party, then sure, why not?

[JonInMiddleGA]

If they want to enter as a competing party, then sure, why not?

As long as you tax exempt the existing private entities from paying into their own competition.

[flere-imsaho]

The internet is different from a typical utility in that it requires constant innovation.

The backbone networking part (which is the part we're talking about)? Yes, it's more complex than water & sewer, but I'm not sure how much more complex it is than the electric grid, tbh.

[Buccaneer]

The electric distribution system has not changed in 50 years. What has changed is how we monitor, regulate and control the juice (e.g., much more real-time than ever before).

[flere-imsaho]

Exactly, there's been, and continues to be, plenty of innovation in the provision of electricity. The Internet backbone isn't unique in this regard. That's all I was saying.

[SportsDino]

Sooner actually asks an important question, which is NOT secondary in this discussion here. I tend to be on the (moderate) left sphere of things, but I can easily see why cable companies are worried about net neutrality under the current state of affairs. Netflix uses something like half of the bandwith in this country. However, it is the cable companies (mostly, fiber optic companies are coming along more and more quickly) that are under the hook for building the infrastructure to be able to support that. Netflix pays nothing for its taxing of the current infrastructure - which produces pressure on the cable companies to update said infrastructure.

So the cable companies say, Netflix pay us for your huge use of bandwith or else we'll slow you down so you don't use as much. I actually don't see that as something horrible.

The alternative, of course, if all content providers can access as much bandwith as possible, the cost is going to be passed onto the consumers. Data caps will be strictly enforced, as the phone companies have already begun to do.

So that's the tradeoff question, really. Do we want content providers to pay based on their usage (and that can be done in other ways than creating a 'fast lane' - maybe a price based on bandwith used) or do we want the consumers to pay? Now, the most economically efficient usage would probably be to have consumers pay - but do we really want that?

Consumers always pay, if Netflix is charged the price of Netflix goes up, if data is capped the end user pays for bandwidth . The legally responsible practice is content providers pay for content and users pay for data usage. It should be illegal to sniff traffic and deliberately sabotage it or create a private preferred network, but now it is. The moral hazards are much higher this way, whereas straight up charging the customer for a bigger data pipe is more equitable and efficient. Say Netflix comes up with a brilliant traffic optimization solution tomorrow that let's them cut backbone net usage by two thirds. Problem solved world peace in our time, except now the bandwidth is throttled at the last hop from the ISP to the consumer and all that brilliance still looks like a shitty slow connection.

This pattern is bad, it lets companies with a vested interest in seeing netflix fail charge an arbitrary toll on that company. Five years later we are all joking about how anyone who is cool uses the slightly expensive comcast virtual cable service instead of lame, slow, content barren Antiquities like Netflix or hulu.

Charging netflix lets comcast get rich making netflix look bad, charging customers lets comcast get rich making itself look bad. In the second course customers will be more likely to vote for increased competition in the bandwidth market, either overturning bad state laws or taking their money to alternatives.

[PilotMan]

When did this become a partisan political issue? Was it the minute that Obama came out in support of it, because my feed is getting blown up with partisans taking their sides. I thought that this was a topic that had lots of support from both sides?

[Buccaneer]

When did this become a partisan political issue? Was it the minute that Obama came out in support of it, because my feed is getting blown up with partisans taking their sides. I thought that this was a topic that had lots of support from both sides?

It does and should but as been said, it's the implementation that ruins it. Also, I believe the utilities quip was probably not a good analogy.

[cuervo72]

But it does make sense, in that this is a technology that should be available to everybody. Yes, it started out as a luxury, but so did indoor plumbing, electricity, radio, telephone, television. I think we've reached a point though - in saturation numbers and cultural reliance - where connectivity should be considered a basic service.

[RainMaker]

When did this become a partisan political issue? Was it the minute that Obama came out in support of it, because my feed is getting blown up with partisans taking their sides. I thought that this was a topic that had lots of support from both sides?

The minute internet providers started heavily funding the campaigns of politicians.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

When did this become a partisan political issue? Was it the minute that Obama came out in support of it, because my feed is getting blown up with partisans taking their sides. I thought that this was a topic that had lots of support from both sides?

As far as I know, it does. I dislike most of Obama's positions, but I was the one that posted this one because I'm behind him totally on this issue.

[flere-imsaho]

As far as I know, it does. I dislike most of Obama's positions, but I was the one that posted this one because I'm behind him totally on this issue.

Well, I just fainted. :p

[ISiddiqui]

Obama must have a Playstation or something ;)

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Obama must have a Playstation or something ;)

No, he's just to the 'I don't give a shit what the voters think' portion of his presidency. There's a lot of presidents that suddenly start to make common sense decisions the final two years of their second term.

[ISiddiqui]

I'm not entirely sure you'll necessarily like what President Obama or his supporters consider to be 'common sense decisions' ;). Besides, he's been for net neutrality for a few years now.

[SteveMax58]

So, I just have to laugh at the stupidity of AT&T sometimes. A couple of years ago with their idiotic leaks regarding their proposed acquisition of T-Mobile (i.e. we'll just remove a competitor & milk it) and now their CEO sticks his foot in his mouth by publicly proclaiming the discussions around Net Neutrality are causing so much uncertainty that they will not be inclined to invest in fiber to the home. Not smart to do when you have a pending mega merger on the table.

Now the FCC is calling them out on their "concerns" & likely to make life miserable for a few people that have to scramble & respond to the FCC's inquiry.

The FCC Responds To AT&T’s Net Neutrality Saber Rattling | TechCrunch (http://techcrunch.com/2014/11/14/the-fcc-responds-to-atts-net-neutrality-saber-rattling/)

Probably won't make much of a difference in the end. AT&T will do damage control but really, really stupid to make those types of statements (or incredibly bad timing if nothing else).

[cartman]

The FCC changed the definition of what can be called broadband from 4Mb down/1Mb up to 25Mb down/3Mb up.

Broadband Internet Definition Changed | Ubergizmo (http://www.ubergizmo.com/2015/01/broadband-internet-definition-changed/)

[ISiddiqui]

It's a fairly big move. Having the right to call your service broadband is very important to cable companies (and their potential customers). Wonder if it will spur some price changes to allow for most customers to have 'broadband' - for promotional reasons and for preventing folks with lower than that calling up and complaining that they don't have "broadband" reasons.

[CU Tiger]

Where I live AT&T is the only option.
Our Uverse route says Broadband all over it.
They have never managed to get me to 1MB up...now I will have an even better argument. Lol not like they will care.

[Logan]

FCC votes to protect the internet with Title II regulation | The Verge (http://www.theverge.com/2015/2/26/8114265/fcc-ruling-net-neutrality-victory-internet-title-ii)

[Grover]

VICTORY!

[ISiddiqui]

And here comes metered usage (well provided the lawsuits fail) ;).

[PilotMan]

At long last, here we are. The new America first Trump FCC. Fuck the people, it's all about the businesses.

FCC unveils plan to repeal net neutrality rules - The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/11/21/the-fcc-has-unveiled-its-plan-to-rollback-its-net-neutrality-rules/)

The headline reads:

FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see and use

It's going to be so awesome. How has malaise about this gotten so damn low. I guess it's being choked out by everything else. I mean I could post something like this every day each a different policy decision.

[Atocep]

I'm sure we'll eventually get around to making the ISPs repay the billions in free infrastructure they received from taxpayers in the creation of our internet.

[ISiddiqui]

It's a bit of shame that very few people are signing up for Google Fiber. Technically I'm in the Atlanta metro region they are ultimately expanding to, but I have serious doubts as to whether they'll ever reach me.

[RainMaker]

It's a bit of shame that very few people are signing up for Google Fiber. Technically I'm in the Atlanta metro region they are ultimately expanding to, but I have serious doubts as to whether they'll ever reach me.

They've made it too hard to enter the market. Lot of good lobbying by the only ISPs in existence to prevent Google from ever getting a foothold.

[bob]

It's a bit of shame that very few people are signing up for Google Fiber. Technically I'm in the Atlanta metro region they are ultimately expanding to, but I have serious doubts as to whether they'll ever reach me.

I agree it'll never get to my house. In fact, by a weird fluke of where my house is and the fact that all the "ports" or whatever on the nearest Comcast box are all used up, my only current internet option is AT&T DSL despite the fact that my next door neighbors all have their choice of Comcast Xfinity or Uverse. According to both Comcast and AT&T, it isn't worth their money to lay a line for me. And AT&T is trying to kill off the DSL stuff. Should be fun.

Oh, and I live in the heart of Roswell.

[PilotMan]

Should probably check out the front page of reddit.

Everyone needs to do this.

Resistbot (https://resistbot.io/)

Contact your Congressmen, they are the only hope to help keep this from happening.

[larrymcg421]

It's a bit of shame that very few people are signing up for Google Fiber. Technically I'm in the Atlanta metro region they are ultimately expanding to, but I have serious doubts as to whether they'll ever reach me.

I just moved to Midtown and was really excited that I was in a Google Fiber area. Signed up immediately.

[tarcone]

Where is google fiber? I see that is is not available in my area. But Im 20 miles from a metro area.
How fast are they putting it in the ground?

[Logan]

An Open Letter to the FCC: – Eric Schneiderman – Medium (https://medium.com/@AGSchneiderman/an-open-letter-to-the-fcc-b867a763850a)

Yet the process the FCC has employed to consider potentially sweeping alterations to current net neutrality rules has been corrupted by the fraudulent use of Americans’ identities — and the FCC has been unwilling to assist my office in our efforts to investigate this unlawful activity.

Specifically, for six months my office has been investigating who perpetrated a massive scheme to corrupt the FCC’s notice and comment process through the misuse of enormous numbers of real New Yorkers’ and other Americans’ identities. Such conduct likely violates state law — yet the FCC has refused multiple requests for crucial evidence in its sole possession that is vital to permit that law enforcement investigation to proceed.

In April 2017, the FCC announced that it would issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning repeal of its existing net neutrality rules. Federal law requires the FCC and all federal agencies to take public comments on proposed rules into account — so it is important that the public comment process actually enable the voices of the millions of individuals and businesses who will be affected to be heard. That’s important no matter one’s position on net neutrality, environmental rules, and so many other areas in which federal agencies regulate.

In May 2017, researchers and reporters discovered that the FCC’s public comment process was being corrupted by the submission of enormous numbers of fake comments concerning the possible repeal of net neutrality rules. In doing so, the perpetrator or perpetrators attacked what is supposed to be an open public process by attempting to drown out and negate the views of the real people, businesses, and others who honestly commented on this important issue. Worse, while some of these fake comments used made up names and addresses, many misused the real names and addresses of actual people as part of the effort to undermine the integrity of the comment process. That’s akin to identity theft, and it happened on a massive scale.

My office analyzed the fake comments and found that tens of thousands of New Yorkers may have had their identities misused in this way. (Indeed, analysis showed that, in all, hundreds of thousands of Americans likely were victimized in the same way, including tens of thousands per state in California, Georgia, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and possibly others.) Impersonation and other misuse of a person’s identity violates New York law, so my office launched an investigation.

[DanGarion]

https://i.imgur.com/Q3kPiLL.png

[RainMaker]

Where is google fiber? I see that is is not available in my area. But Im 20 miles from a metro area.
How fast are they putting it in the ground?

Not fast. The existing ISPs have made it incredibly hard for them to expand. Suing them at every turn.

You're probably better off waiting for 5G but again, that requires some deep fiber that the current ISPs have avoided laying down because they have no competition and certainly don't want to create any.

[Scoobz0202]

As expected, 3-2 vote to repeal.

Sad.

[PilotMan]

So fucking stupid. Nothing like 80+% opposed and it still passes.

[NobodyHere]

Democracy FTW!

[SteveM58]

So fucking stupid. Nothing like 80+% opposed and it still passes.

Well, I get why people don't trust ISPs but honestly its just like a la carte. People really don't understand the business they are so eager for the government (that they don't trust, currently anyway) to regulate.

NN does not mean unlimited bandwidth to every user. Originators still (and have always) paid for their bandwidth, access to networks closer to subscribers, and on caching for better performance (depending on what they do). Sometimes that caching is provided by the ISP....is this a "fastlane" or "discriminating" against those who don't cache inside major datacenters because some companies can't/won't pay for it? Well, that exists with/without NN.

Meanwhile, the very companies arguing for NN monetize us every day. The net (no pun intended) effect of net neutrality (that the tech giants care about) is that ISPs can now do the same things the Googles, Amazons, Facebooks, etc do by targeting ads to you, and become a massive force in online advertising. Of course there would be opposition to that by the tech giants.

[RainMaker]

Meanwhile, the very companies arguing for NN monetize us every day. The net (no pun intended) effect of net neutrality (that the tech giants care about) is that ISPs can now do the same things the Googles, Amazons, Facebooks, etc do by targeting ads to you, and become a massive force in online advertising. Of course there would be opposition to that by the tech giants.

Google, Amazon, and Facebook are not monopolies. The difference is that most of us don't have a choice when connecting to the internet. We do have a choice in what services we use online.

[cuervo72]

So Comcast might be able to cut into say, the middle of my reading a WaPo article, or interrupt my looking at FOBL box scores, or interject an ad into my Steam session? Boy, that sounds peachy.

edit: also can't wait for a carrier/content provider dispute, a la Dish/CBS where sites get dropped from service

[PilotMan]

Well, I get why people don't trust ISPs but honestly its just like a la carte. People really don't understand the business they are so eager for the government (that they don't trust, currently anyway) to regulate.

NN does not mean unlimited bandwidth to every user. Originators still (and have always) paid for their bandwidth, access to networks closer to subscribers, and on caching for better performance (depending on what they do). Sometimes that caching is provided by the ISP....is this a "fastlane" or "discriminating" against those who don't cache inside major datacenters because some companies can't/won't pay for it? Well, that exists with/without NN.

Meanwhile, the very companies arguing for NN monetize us every day. The net (no pun intended) effect of net neutrality (that the tech giants care about) is that ISPs can now do the same things the Googles, Amazons, Facebooks, etc do by targeting ads to you, and become a massive force in online advertising. Of course there would be opposition to that by the tech giants.

The internet isn't a la carte right now. I don't want to have a subscription level to be able to access certain websites. I don't want to have limits on where I can go, or what I can watch, use, research, or to have to pay extra just to get to those sites.

The internet today is open to people of all demos and social status level. A homeless guy can load up the same pages and sites that the CEO of Exxon can. His access isn't restricted and his options are all open to him.

Now, with the removal of those restrictions the fairness standard for people who can't afford or reach sites that are the highest demand becomes critical. We're taking fair access system and replacing it with a buyer model where pay to play will win the day. It's pretty much the opposite of fairness.

[SteveM58]

Google, Amazon, and Facebook are not monopolies. The difference is that most of us don't have a choice when connecting to the internet. We do have a choice in what services we use online.

Actually most of us do have more than 1 provider. If you live near any metro area you have a choice.

This is from a 2013 Dept of Commerce report. So data speeds are much lower than today.
http://esa.doc.gov/sites/default/files/competition-among-us-broadband-service-providers.pdf

Here's the 2014 Broadband providers interactive map....
Broadband Map - Number of Providers - National Broadband Map (https://www.broadbandmap.gov/number-of-providers)

[SteveM58]

The internet isn't a la carte right now. I don't want to have a subscription level to be able to access certain websites. I don't want to have limits on where I can go, or what I can watch, use, research, or to have to pay extra just to get to those sites.

The internet today is open to people of all demos and social status level. A homeless guy can load up the same pages and sites that the CEO of Exxon can. His access isn't restricted and his options are all open to him.

Now, with the removal of those restrictions the fairness standard for people who can't afford or reach sites that are the highest demand becomes critical. We're taking fair access system and replacing it with a buyer model where pay to play will win the day. It's pretty much the opposite of fairness.

I was referring to a la carte as in people don't get the economics driving it. ISPs aren't going to block or bundle websites. Thats terrible business for a company making their money on giving you access to the internet. Think about it...in metro areas you typically have 2 choices, plus cellular providers. The first one to block websites gets their clock cleaned.

The part I think any reasonable person might find objectionable would be the notion of how people are monetized and packaged for advertising. If you believe in "follow the money" when it comes to businesses that oppose each other on policy, thats the crux of this one. The tech giants prefer to keep their share of the $200B+ online advertising business and ISPs believe they should be able to enter & disrupt that business just as the tech giants are trying to disrupt the video side of their business.

Its an advertising driven business. And while I don't particularly like the datamining thats done on people across the board on the internet, I get it from a business standpoint.

[RainMaker]

Actually most of us do have more than 1 provider. If you live near any metro area you have a choice.

This is from a 2013 Dept of Commerce report. So data speeds are much lower than today.
http://esa.doc.gov/sites/default/files/competition-among-us-broadband-service-providers.pdf

Here's the 2014 Broadband providers interactive map....
Broadband Map - Number of Providers - National Broadband Map (https://www.broadbandmap.gov/number-of-providers)

This is not true. That document you link to shows how few providers we have at higher speeds. It's also dated as the FCC put out a report in 2015 saying 80% of customers had only 1 high speed option.

Also that document was made before Charter bought Time Warner and Brighthouse which knocked out two of the bigger providers. They are also likely going to acquire Cox soon unless Comcast sneaks in first.

[RainMaker]

I was referring to a la carte as in people don't get the economics driving it. ISPs aren't going to block or bundle websites. Thats terrible business for a company making their money on giving you access to the internet. Think about it...in metro areas you typically have 2 choices, plus cellular providers. The first one to block websites gets their clock cleaned.

The part I think any reasonable person might find objectionable would be the notion of how people are monetized and packaged for advertising. If you believe in "follow the money" when it comes to businesses that oppose each other on policy, thats the crux of this one. The tech giants prefer to keep their share of the $200B+ online advertising business and ISPs believe they should be able to enter & disrupt that business just as the tech giants are trying to disrupt the video side of their business.

Its an advertising driven business. And while I don't particularly like the datamining thats done on people across the board on the internet, I get it from a business standpoint.

80% of the country doesn't have a choice. Cellular is not comparable at the moment.

And why wouldn't the tech giant want to keep the money? They created the product or service that people want. Why would they share that with a company that had nothing to do with their business?

[SackAttack]

Remember when the ISPs accepted billions in federal subsidies to build out broadband networks to rural areas and then turned around and said 'nah never mind can't do it but thanks for the money'?

Good times.

[QuikSand]

Remember when the ISPs accepted billions in federal subsidies to build out broadband networks to rural areas and then turned around and said 'nah never mind can't do it but thanks for the money'?

Good times.

I genuinely don't remember this. Where can I read/learn more?

[Ben E Lou]

Question: a local-ish ISP put down fiber in my neighborhood recently, and we made the switch to them. How is this expected to impact companies like this and their customers? They're not new (in-laws have used this company for cable/internet since at least 1998,) so clearly they made a go of it before the net neutrality rules, but I have no idea if the last few years helped them get to the point where they could do fiber, either.

[PilotMan]

I genuinely don't remember this. Where can I read/learn more?

He might be paraphrasing a bit, but this op/ed piece from The Hill is the closest I could find.

Rural broadband subsidy programs are a failure. We need to fix them. | TheHill (http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/technology/323200-rural-broadband-subsidy-programs-are-a-failure-we-need-to-fix)

I think this opposition piece from The Wired, is good at explaining the FCC's proposed change in the definition of "High Speed" from 25mpbs to 10mbps and saying it's all good. The money should have been spent to bring a min of 25mbps service to rural areas. Over 100 billion has been allocated to plans and to date, 61% in rural areas have access to that speed. You'd think that a program that has been in place for over 8 years might have done a little better.

https://www.wired.com/story/redefining-broadband-could-slow-rollout-in-rural-areas/

[bob]

He might be paraphrasing a bit, but this op/ed piece from The Hill is the closest I could find.

Rural broadband subsidy programs are a failure. We need to fix them. | TheHill (http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/technology/323200-rural-broadband-subsidy-programs-are-a-failure-we-need-to-fix)

I think this opposition piece from The Wired, is good at explaining the FCC's proposed change in the definition of "High Speed" from 25mpbs to 10mbps and saying it's all good. The money should have been spent to bring a min of 25mbps service to rural areas. Over 100 billion has been allocated to plans and to date, 61% in rural areas have access to that speed. You'd think that a program that has been in place for over 8 years might have done a little better.

https://www.wired.com/story/redefining-broadband-could-slow-rollout-in-rural-areas/

I live in Roswell Georgia which is far from rural, and my only option is DSL. I'd love 10 Mbps, much less 25. I don't know what I will do if att kills their dsl service, because no one will come install anything better to my house (neither Comcast or Att)

[SteveM58]

This is not true. That document you link to shows how few providers we have at higher speeds. It's also dated as the FCC put out a report in 2015 saying 80% of customers had only 1 high speed option.

Also that document was made before Charter bought Time Warner and Brighthouse which knocked out two of the bigger providers. They are also likely going to acquire Cox soon unless Comcast sneaks in first.

Would you be so kind as to link to your source? Because I think you're conflating 2 separate concepts.

There is only 1 CATV provider for the vast majorioty. But there is CATV, TELCO, plus DISH ISPs in addition to Cellular (which a lot of people are just using in lieu of hardwired).

Comcast & TWC did not compete because neither can make a business model entering the same markets when there is already a 3rd provider (typicallyu Verizon or AT&T or Centurylink).

[SteveM58]

80% of the country doesn't have a choice. Cellular is not comparable at the moment.

And why wouldn't the tech giant want to keep the money? They created the product or service that people want. Why would they share that with a company that had nothing to do with their business?
Your 80% number is not true. Most people live in metro areas and have at least 2 choices because population density makes it viable to have competition. Where you typically don't have 2 providers are rural areas where the population density is so low that even 1 company has a hard time making a business case (arguably DISH or cellular ISPs could be the 2nd, but we'll stick to hardline).

Its not about "sharing" revenue, which was sarcasm on my part. Its about competition in the online ad space. I'm not sure why you think Google is entitled to leverage its infrastructure of data mining they've built to make money yet ISPs should not? Maybe there's a good argument to be made there but I can't see it.

And are you really not seeing how the Internet Service Provider enabled the tech giants to monetize the internet? I'm not following your train of thought outside of ISPs are inherently evil actors.

[SteveM58]

Remember when the ISPs accepted billions in federal subsidies to build out broadband networks to rural areas and then turned around and said 'nah never mind can't do it but thanks for the money'?

Good times.

Are you talking about the Universal Services Fund (https://www.fcc.gov/general/universal-service)?

That only applied to telco companies for a long time but it was intended to subsidize costs where it made no business sense (or the ROI would be 10+ years, which nobody would do) to build infrastructure out to people in the sticks.

I can tel you it costs $10-15k per mile to build out fiber infrastructure in ideal conditions. Its often $20k+ and thats just aerial (on poles). Its a capital heavy business which is why you typically only see 1 provider (if any) out that far since not everybody that far off grid even wants internet service.

[SteveM58]

Question: a local-ish ISP put down fiber in my neighborhood recently, and we made the switch to them. How is this expected to impact companies like this and their customers? They're not new (in-laws have used this company for cable/internet since at least 1998,) so clearly they made a go of it before the net neutrality rules, but I have no idea if the last few years helped them get to the point where they could do fiber, either.

Generally, small ISPs are also against the net neutrality rules. And its not because they want to block the Daily Kos.

Its because they can be a source of data mining and get paid for it, which helps them stay profitable since they are typically building in areas that are not easy to justify ROI of very expensive infrastructure to deploy.

[JPhillips]

I don't expect any massive changes, but I do expect we'll fall further behind the rest of the developed world in terms of speed and cost.

[ISiddiqui]

ISPs aren't going to block or bundle websites.

A big reason that Title II rules came into place is because prior to them Comcast tried to block bitTorrent. FCC moved against them due to net neutrality principles put in place in 2005 (which is why this strange focus just on Title II designation in 2015 misses the point). FCC decided they need stronger rules than just those principles.

[Ben E Lou]

Generally, small ISPs are also against the net neutrality rules. And its not because they want to block the Daily Kos.

Its because they can be a source of data mining and get paid for it, which helps them stay profitable since they are typically building in areas that are not easy to justify ROI of very expensive infrastructure to deploy.Well, this isn't really a small town. The GSO/High Point/Winston-Salem area that this company serves has a higher population than Jacksonville, New Orleans, Memphis, or Birmingham, just to name a few areas, so maybe they don't fit the mold of what you're talking about here?

And let's be clear: I'm not interested in whether the ISP is for or against the rules. This is about ME and MY needs, ok? ;) Does this increase the likelihood that one of the big boys will buy them out/force them out of business, thus causing me to need to care about this?

[SteveM58]

A big reason that Title II rules came into place is because prior to them Comcast tried to block bitTorrent. FCC moved against them due to net neutrality principles put in place in 2005 (which is why this strange focus just on Title II designation in 2015 misses the point). FCC decided they need stronger rules than just those principles.

The 2005 principles were just guidelines, which is why the FCC moved to Title II classification when they were overruled on having the authority to penalize or enforce those guidelines.

Title II gave them that authority, but it also allows them to start price-fixing as they do in other areas. For instance, the reason you've seen so many ticky-tack fees for everything under the sun (DVR service, HD Sports, etc.) on your video subscription is because the FCC price-fixes the amount that a settop box can be rented for. So in order to provide a more expensive & capable box, while not forcing lower paying subscribers to subsidize it, you add the fees. Some companies simply abandoned that model (and I agree with the approach) because it has a negative perception.

Comcast blocked some bittorrent activity because it was effectively bottlenecking the rest of their customers, and they assumed most of it was illegal content anyway. Its not the case any more but back then torrents were eating 70-80% of capacities at peak times. With the advent of Netflix, Youtube, & others thats not nearly as substantial and overall throughput continues to double every year at every ISP.

[SteveM58]

Well, this isn't really a small town. The GSO/High Point/Winston-Salem area that this company serves has a higher population than Jacksonville, New Orleans, Memphis, or Birmingham, just to name a few areas, so maybe they don't fit the mold of what you're talking about here?

And let's be clear: I'm not interested in whether the ISP is for or against the rules. This is about ME and MY needs, ok? ;) Does this increase the likelihood that one of the big boys will buy them out/force them out of business, thus causing me to need to care about this?

Yeah I'm talking much more rural than WS.

And no, the repea of net neutrality lowers the likelihood of being bought out as they are better able to operate without scale. But obviously net neutrality is not the only factor there.

[cuervo72]

This may not be directly relevant to net neutrality, but this article from a couple of years ago is interesting in at least touching upon the greater Google vs Cable fight.

https://www.wired.com/2016/02/fcc-set-top-box-rules/

This argument seems oddly familiar, btw.

If Google manufactures a set-top box, the argument goes, it could potentially insert its own ads into programming, taking money away from content creators. It would also, argues Rosa Mendoza, Executive Director of the Hispanic Technology & Telecommunications Partnership, disproportionately impact smaller networks with more targeted audiences who might get left out of a channel lineup altogether.

"They're asking us to trust Google?" she says. "All of us know about their diversity record. The only people that are going to benefit from this are Silicon Valley companies."

[RainMaker]

Would you be so kind as to link to your source? Because I think you're conflating 2 separate concepts.

There is only 1 CATV provider for the vast majorioty. But there is CATV, TELCO, plus DISH ISPs in addition to Cellular (which a lot of people are just using in lieu of hardwired).

Comcast & TWC did not compete because neither can make a business model entering the same markets when there is already a 3rd provider (typicallyu Verizon or AT&T or Centurylink).

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-340664A1.pdf

Page 8 has it.

https://i.imgur.com/eKPGbu5.jpg

Satellite is not comparable due to it's awful latency (although this is slowly being worked on) and restrictions in more urban areas. Cellular isn't an alternative due to cost for data and the restrictions that come with it. Perhaps when 5G hits but there isn't a lot of motivation to push that now.

[henry296]

Not all census blocks have the same population. They tend to have less population in in rural areas compared to urban ones.

[RainMaker]

Its not about "sharing" revenue, which was sarcasm on my part. Its about competition in the online ad space. I'm not sure why you think Google is entitled to leverage its infrastructure of data mining they've built to make money yet ISPs should not? Maybe there's a good argument to be made there but I can't see it.

And are you really not seeing how the Internet Service Provider enabled the tech giants to monetize the internet? I'm not following your train of thought outside of ISPs are inherently evil actors.

This is like saying that the light bulb manufacturer should have to pay the electric company because without them, their lights would not work. Or that Campbells Soup should have to give a cut to the gas company because without them, their product couldn't be heated on a gas stove.

Your ISP is a utility that provides a service to its customers (the ability to access the internet). They have nothing to do with whether that customer accesses Facebook or this very forum. Just like the electric company has nothing to do with whether I use Philips or GE light bulbs.

These tech companies are able to monetize because they provide a service (most often free) to users that people want to use. They have unlimited amounts of competition so that if they do screw over their customer, they will likely lose them to a company that won't screw them over. Net neutrality helped keep the internet competitive because it put each company on the same level playing field.

[Thomkal]

Net neutrality: Donald Trump Jr suggests people who want to keep net neutrality don't understand it (https://www.yahoo.com/news/net-neutrality-donald-trump-jr-085600835.html)

There were some pretty good burns on a Ted Cruz tweet about it to

[Atocep]

I'm not following your train of thought outside of ISPs are inherently evil actors.

Because they've been anti-consumer and anti-competition in nearly every imaginable way.

Google and local municipalities have tried creating legitimate competition for ISPs and the way they've fought that competition is to bog it down in lawsuits to either stall it or force them to give up.

Comcast and other cable companies have pushed people to look for ways to cut cable because of their prices and business tactics and now that they actually have legitimate competition they're losing about 6 million subscribers per year and going up every year. Rather than improve in the areas that forced people to look for alternatives their solution is to find new ways to monetize the service cord cutter are using.

Comcast initially claimed their data caps were because of network congestion. Then they backtracked and claimed it was about fairness. Their version of fairness is to set an arbitrary number and charge you exponentially more than the standard rate when you go over that number. Yet I'm not paying any less if I'm well below that number and it doesn't roll over to the next month.


ISPs aren't going to block or bundle websites

I'll admit it's unlikely, but definitely not a guarantee. It is happening in other countries and as more and more people cut cable and they'll continue to look for new ways to monetize the services they have.

What is more likely is the internet fast lanes, which are already happening, are going to force more cost from Netflix, Hulu, Internet Gaming and other content providers onto consumers.

[SteveM58]

This is like saying that the light bulb manufacturer should have to pay the electric company because without them, their lights would not work. Or that Campbells Soup should have to give a cut to the gas company because without them, their product couldn't be heated on a gas stove.

Your ISP is a utility that provides a service to its customers (the ability to access the internet). They have nothing to do with whether that customer accesses Facebook or this very forum. Just like the electric company has nothing to do with whether I use Philips or GE light bulbs.

These tech companies are able to monetize because they provide a service (most often free) to users that people want to use. They have unlimited amounts of competition so that if they do screw over their customer, they will likely lose them to a company that won't screw them over. Net neutrality helped keep the internet competitive because it put each company on the same level playing field.

Actually the light bulb manufacturer is not the analogy. The energy source provider is the proper analogy and the energy distribution company most certainly does collect distribution fees to maintain the physical infrastructure to provide said energy.

The reason they can give you a "free" service is because they aren't fully paying for the service they provide (e.g. the ability to get data to you...not just the entry point to the internet at their sites) in addition to monetizing users to sell to advertising companies. ISPs simply want the same ability to monetize.

Look I get it. People have their opinions on their ISP vs tech giants and they unanimously choose the tech giants. But you are essentially saying you prefer to pick tech giants & government over ISPs. You are of course free to choose that way but thats not a capitalist system you are supporting.

[SteveM58]

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-340664A1.pdf

Page 8 has it.

https://i.imgur.com/eKPGbu5.jpg

Satellite is not comparable due to it's awful latency (although this is slowly being worked on) and restrictions in more urban areas. Cellular isn't an alternative due to cost for data and the restrictions that come with it. Perhaps when 5G hits but there isn't a lot of motivation to push that now.

89% of people had 10 Mbps down & 1 Mbps up from 2 or more fixed providers. Of note there were <1% with no access to 10/1 Mbps. The 10 Mbps jumped to 25 quickly by 2016 and continues to go up every year.

And yes, wired internet is still better for higher bandwidth applications. 5G ha spromise but its still a couple of years from any noteworthy rollout.

[SteveM58]

Because they've been anti-consumer and anti-competition in nearly every imaginable way.

Google and local municipalities have tried creating legitimate competition for ISPs and the way they've fought that competition is to bog it down in lawsuits to either stall it or force them to give up.

Comcast and other cable companies have pushed people to look for ways to cut cable because of their prices and business tactics and now that they actually have legitimate competition they're losing about 6 million subscribers per year and going up every year. Rather than improve in the areas that forced people to look for alternatives their solution is to find new ways to monetize the service cord cutter are using.

Comcast initially claimed their data caps were because of network congestion. Then they backtracked and claimed it was about fairness. Their version of fairness is to set an arbitrary number and charge you exponentially more than the standard rate when you go over that number. Yet I'm not paying any less if I'm well below that number and it doesn't roll over to the next month.
While I would point out that Comcast isn't losing 6 million subscribers a year (they've remained fairly stable at over 20 million) I'm certainly not going to disagree that some ISPs have made bad market decisions.

But Comcast has competitors. Verizon, AT&T, and Centurylink all compete with them in addition to Google fiber.

But speaking of Google fiber. Notice how when the adults got their hands on the money (e.g. new CFO in 2015 or 2016 IIRC) how little progress has happened there? Even with Googlebucks & the support of the local government it isn't easy.

And while I'm not familiar with every incumbent ISP lawsuit or pushback where Google starts in, I can tell you that many of those ISPs did not get the same easing of franchise negotiations, fasttracking, and most often had to provide all sorts of free services (in addition to revenue sharing) in a lot of those places. But I'm not against competition at all even if the incumbent was unfairly required to jump thru hoops that the new entrant isn't. 2 wrongs don't make a right.


I'll admit it's unlikely, but definitely not a guarantee. It is happening in other countries and as more and more people cut cable and they'll continue to look for new ways to monetize the services they have.

What is more likely is the internet fast lanes, which are already happening, are going to force more cost from Netflix, Hulu, Internet Gaming and other content providers onto consumers.
That would, as you noted, happen organically anyway. Netflix actually has a great caching system they use inside of ISPs' datacenters that dramatically lowers the backbone/peering congestion they used to cause. They still eat up a lot of access network but thats less problematic these days as it was a few years back.

The amount of burden ISPs shoulder to handle 5 companies' content is staggering if you see the numbers. Its not quite this high any more (due to other options now) but Netflix was over half the traffic on ISPs' networks just a few years ago. If you weren't a Netflix subscriber, you were subsidizing that cost for those who did have Netflix...because Netflix wasn't paying for their bandwidth to their customers.

Its a murky subject. There's no good guys & bad guys in my view. Its just businesses trying to disrupt each other & I think thats a good thing if you want better products and better prices and more jobs for workers in those fields.

Edit to add: Yes, you mentioned other countries and blocking content. Thats the governments doing that. And the more authority you give the government by classifying ISPs as Title II common carriers, the closer you get to that because the government can exert their power & influence to "convince" the ISPs to block things they feel we shouldn't see (Wikileaks anybody?). Thats actually a little argued side of this debate but it ends up with the classic capitalist/socialist debates that really go nowhere. But I think its an important win on that front as well.

[cuervo72]

This is what I can get from Verizon:

3.1-7 Mbps Internet

$34.99/mo
for 1 year plus taxes & fees. Speeds 1.1 to 3, 3.1 - 7 and 7.1 - 15 Mbps. Verizon home phone service required.1
when added to Home Phone

The options are basically Comcast or HughesNet. I can deal with satellite for TV, but not for internet. So it's Comcast, where we've had 25 Mbps download and 5-7 Mbps upload for years (yay, innovation!).

Man Explains The Actual Dangers Of Net Neutrality Being Killed Off In Detailed Twitter Rant (http://www.distractify.com/trending/2017/12/15/CdcVb/man-explains-dangers-of-net-neutrality-detailed-twitter-rant)

I don't know how much of this is on-base or not, though it makes sense to me. This one absolutely worries me:

The problem is NOT that you'll have to pay to access your favorite mainstream website or service, but that you'll have to pay to access non mainstream websites or services if they dont have the financial mean to deal an inclusion on the main package.

I mean, let's be real - these are not only service providers, these are media companies. They have content, and they're going to want to get eyeballs to their content.

[Young Drachma]

I read something earlier about how this might push more cities (where it hasn't been banned by states) to create their own broadband networks locally. That's not a bad thing, but big telco is trying to prevent that from happening where it already hasn't.

[cuervo72]

Oh, regarding caching - I thought companies like Akamai took care of a lot of that (and pay ISPs to house their servers in their datacenters).

[SteveM58]

This may not be directly relevant to net neutrality, but this article from a couple of years ago is interesting in at least touching upon the greater Google vs Cable fight.

https://www.wired.com/2016/02/fcc-set-top-box-rules/

This argument seems oddly familiar, btw.

Yes, AllVid was the working name of it. AllVid - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AllVid)

All the MVPDs (which include cable, telco, dish, etc.) were against it. And the tech giants were for it (mostly anyway). The dispute was very political with (as you might have guessed) advertising money at the core of it.

CableCard really set the interactive video business back a couple of years in the mid 2000s, and its still a small burden today. And no MVPD wanted a new platform which would undoubtedly get outdated by the time legislation came to pass.

But what the tech giants wanted was to get the benefits of programming they didn't have to negotiate for by forcing MVPDs to support a common platform. You'd still need a subscription with the MVPD but they could monetize that platform without programmer consent, and that would give them leverage to get consent from programmers (assuming they had a wildly successful ability to convince consumers to buy their version of such a platform). Just all sorts of weird implications honestly which would have delayed better investments in video in my opinion...even putting aside the right/wrong of it.

[Young Drachma]

I genuinely don't remember this. Where can I read/learn more?

From 2015:
AT&T grudgingly accepts $428 million in annual government funding | Ars Technica (https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/08/att-grudgingly-accepts-428-million-in-annual-government-funding/)

AT&T has struck a deal with the US government to get nearly $428 million per year to bring 10Mbps Internet service to parts of rural America after protesting that it shouldn't have to provide speeds that fast.

The money comes from the Connect America Fund, which draws from surcharges on Americans' phone bills to pay for rural Internet service. AT&T accepted the money even though it argued last year that rural customers don't need Internet service better than the old standard of 4Mbps downstream and 1Mbps upstream. The FCC ignored AT&T's protests in December, raising the Connect America Fund download standard to 10Mbps while leaving the 1Mbps requirement unchanged.

From 2017:
Rural broadband subsidy programs are a failure. We need to fix them. | TheHill (http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/technology/323200-rural-broadband-subsidy-programs-are-a-failure-we-need-to-fix)

FCC begins scaling back internet subsidies for low-income homes - The Verge (https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/17/16669716/fcc-lifeline-scaled-back-tribal-lands-broadband-discount-limits)

[SteveM58]

Oh, regarding caching - I thought companies like Akamai took care of a lot of that (and pay ISPs to house their servers in their datacenters).

They do for most smaller companies where it doesn't make sense to build your own CDN. And thats the vast majority of web companies.

But the larger ones, Netflix, Google/Youtube, Amazon, etc. have their own as do the largest ISPs to differing degrees (e.g. cloud DVR on a private CDN).

[SteveM58]

I read something earlier about how this might push more cities (where it hasn't been banned by states) to create their own broadband networks locally. That's not a bad thing, but big telco is trying to prevent that from happening where it already hasn't.

Yeah Google fiber started a small wave of that. The problem with it is the same problem municipalities had in the late 90s early 2000s when many tried the same thing...if they even build a network, they have a hard time keeping up with technology and it quickly becomes insolvent. Especially if taxpayers aren't onboard with the erratic large investments needed, as it isn't just "build it and everything stays the same for years". It literally requires constant upkeep, and very smart people to properly architect it.

Its possible of course, but generally speaking the brightest are going to go work elsewhere since municipalities aren't likely to keep up with the wages they can earn elsewhere.

Edit to add: Its worth noting that this very scenario is the reason many states & municipalities actually have laws against them doing this very thing. Because if the municipality can no longer afford to maintain the erratic & large costs (both people & hardware) they essentially have to get money from the state (to fund contractors...not cheap) to come in & solve their problems. And all the while, the municipality has discouraged private competition from investing so the municipality ends up worse off in just a few years.

Its not a guarantee that every municipal system ends up that way of course. But its a very risky proposition if you have at least 1 semi-reasonable incumbent ISP.

[JPhillips]

Edit to add: Its worth noting that this very scenario is the reason many states & municipalities actually have laws against them doing this very thing. Because if the municipality can no longer afford to maintain the erratic & large costs (both people & hardware) they essentially have to get money from the state (to fund contractors...not cheap) to come in & solve their problems. And all the while, the municipality has discouraged private competition from investing so the municipality ends up worse off in just a few years.

With all due respect, come on. These laws have been passed after telecom lobbying and they ain't lobbying to limit taxpayer liability.

[SteveM58]

This is what I can get from Verizon:

3.1-7 Mbps Internet

$34.99/mo
for 1 year plus taxes & fees. Speeds 1.1 to 3, 3.1 - 7 and 7.1 - 15 Mbps. Verizon home phone service required.1
when added to Home Phone

The options are basically Comcast or HughesNet. I can deal with satellite for TV, but not for internet. So it's Comcast, where we've had 25 Mbps download and 5-7 Mbps upload for years (yay, innovation!).

Man Explains The Actual Dangers Of Net Neutrality Being Killed Off In Detailed Twitter Rant (http://www.distractify.com/trending/2017/12/15/CdcVb/man-explains-dangers-of-net-neutrality-detailed-twitter-rant)

I don't know how much of this is on-base or not, though it makes sense to me. This one absolutely worries me:



I mean, let's be real - these are not only service providers, these are media companies. They have content, and they're going to want to get eyeballs to their content.
Wow, Verizon really sucks there. Maybe they should stop paying billions for 90s era tech companies & invest in their network there.

There's a lot of misinformation on net neutrality out there. And that guy's twitter stream is not helping that problem.

First off, Verizon & Comcast did not "throttle" Netflix. They simply refused to upgrade peering links to support Netflix migrating content from A to B location without Netflix footing some of that bill. When a company that supplies as much content as Netflix migrates their origination point, it causes massive shifts in how much traffic comes from where. This saturates links all over the place and requires upgrades quickly to compensate.

When Netflix refused to pay for their impact to peering connections, Comcast & Verizon simply refused to upgrade (specifically for this move) in the places that Netflix caused impact. Its, once again, just a business trying to win the PR game against easy pickins (Comcast & Verizon).

Second, and probably the most ludicrous, is that small websites will have to pay exorbitant fees to not get on the "slow lane". This could be done with net neutrality in place, as NN doesn't cover the initial access connection being priced any certain way. So all an ISP has to do is price a small website out of paying anything at all. It doesn't happen because ISPs want their money, generally have competition for their business, and want their subscribers to pay them for access to everything. Its such an incoherent argument, it boggles the mind.

Another thing preventing ISPs from squashing small sites (as if they had motivation to do it), is that the small websites could be hosted & originated by a larger aggregation entity which would discourage an ISP from screwing with one of the small websites it hosts. Again...its just silly why the ISP would even bother.

I'll give it a rest for the night. But man there's a lot of misinformation on this topic. Some of it is justifiable concern to a degree, but some of it is really misinformed or really disingenuous.

[SteveM58]

With all due respect, come on. These laws have been passed after telecom lobbying and they ain't lobbying to limit taxpayer liability.

They are passed, in some cases, because telecoms lobbied them to make sure their investments in municipalities weren't going to get competition from the actual municipality they were investing into. Competing with the government is not what they signed up for when they entered the market.

Think about it. Why would you spend $100s of millions in an area that is going to compete with you. You certainly wouldn't enter the market under the same terms if that was the case.

That happened a number of times in late 90s/early 2000s. I actually helped build a couple of them, and they are all defunct now (assets sold off dirt cheap to a local cable/telco company).

But it wasn't all lobbying that did that. States actually didn't want their municipalities going off and doing crazy things with massive cost implications just because they managed to get something built & later on nobody else was willing to fund it.

[JPhillips]

The NC bill in 2011 was titled:

"An act to protect jobs and investment by regulating local government competition with private business."

Funny how that doesn't mention costs and taxpayer liability.

edit: The Kansas bill said this:

"scarce taxpayer dollars should not be used by municipalities to directly compete with private telecom providers."

double edit: Clearly ALEC is supplying legislative language to states, and they are industry funded throughout their issues. They have a section of their website devoted to broadband access.

https://www.alec.org/issue/broadband/

[SteveM58]

The NC bill in 2011 was titled:



Funny how that doesn't mention costs and taxpayer liability.

edit: The Kansas bill said this:
NC was (and still is) home to major ISP presence like AT&T and Time Warner Cable. They weren't going to base themselves there without assurances like that. If that makes them evil, just wait until you see what Amazon gets on HQ2.

But I agree lobbying is a terrible side effect of government holding so many cards. I'd rather there be nothing to lobby for personally.